TPMDC

Hoyer: I'm Not Negotiating On Abortion Provisions in Health Care Bill


House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Speaker Of The House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

TPM's Brian Beutler reports from Capitol Hill that House Democrats are moving forward on health care with or without prolife Rep. Bart Stupak and the dozen lawmakers he might get to attempt to block the bill.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters this morning that Democrats "have not discussed a third way" and that when he spoke with Stupak (D-MI) about the abortion provisions he wants in the measure, "I made it clear that I wasn't negotiating."

"We don't want to go without their votes, but we do want to forge ahead, and as you know Mr. Stupak has made it very very clear that he's very strongly in favor of achieving health care in this Congress. And I think that a lot of his colleagues feel the same way," Hoyer said.

The majority leader said that as Congress nears a final vote it's clear the abortion provisions Stupak wants inserted into the health care legislation can't be addressed in the budget reconciliation bill that House Democrats need to pass.

Asked if the case was closed, Hoyer said: "We'll have to deal with that pretty much as it is at this point in time."

Last night on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she's confident Stupak won't try to sink the bill.

"And those who want the bill to fail hijack the good intentions of others who have concerns about the federal funding of abortion," she said.

Comments (27) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

AJM

user-pic

March 12, 2010 11:01 AM   

Actions speak louder than words: Stupak has already shown that he was willing to tank health care.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 11:20 AM    in reply to AJM

I do not pretend to know anything more than you know, but I am increasingly given to a more optimistic outlook. After all, Rep Stupak did vote for the original House bill. I suspect that he is just grandstanding; that is to say, he is being combative simply as a means to get his name mentioned at the top of the newscast hour. The news cycle moves quickly, however. He is already stale news at this point. In order to get his limelight back, he needs to do something new, and announcing that he is now satisfied with the language of the Senate bill is a great way to do that. In other words, I expect that he will announce that he has "reached a deal" very soon, simply as a means of keeping his name in the news.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 11:27 AM    in reply to A Missouri voter

I hope the "get my name up in lights" strategy backfires for him.

After all, whenever I hear "Stupak", the first thing I think is "Stupak Coat Hanger Amendment."

That's a nice way to be remembered, right?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 11:33 AM    in reply to cambridgeMR

and fortunately, he has a primary challenger....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 11:54 AM    in reply to pgbach

Who has about as much chance of winning in that district as I do.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 11:54 AM    in reply to A Missouri voter

"After all, Rep Stupak did vote for the original House bill."

Yeah, he did, after they passed an amendment. I can't remember the name of it, but I think it may be called the Stupak Amendment. Remember when Nancy Pelosi and the Dems were essentially saying the things about him then that they are now? We heard the same old "this is not an abortion bill this is a health care bill" bullshit that Pelosi is now repeating. Guess what? Stupak won that round, not Nancy "I am supposedly the most powerful fucking Speaker in the history of the Republic" Pelosi. That is the whole reason they have reached this impasse now.

It is hilarious that anyone here thinks he is just bluffing after spending weeks telling every single person that will listen that he will not vote for the bill. The notion that he will vote for it "in the end" is so much wishful thinking, it requires one to be delusional to entertain such fantasies. Seven people have already stated, definitively, that they absolutely will not vote for the bill if the Stupak language is not changed. That number is eight if you add Henry Cuellar who told Investors Business Daily that he is a Stupak Democrat. That is only four short of the Dozen he promised.

Go back and watch that interview with Rachel Maddow. Watch Pelosi's reaction when Maddow asks her, point blank, if Stupak has the dozen votes he claims he does. She refuses to answer the question. She starts spouting talking points about pre-existing conditions and other such bullshit. Even Maddow, at the end of the segment, states that Pelosi was dodging the question. Regardless what Maddow says about Stupak only having three or four votes (a statement that is demonstrably wrong), Pelosi gave away the fucking game by so blatantly dodging the question.


For those who suppor this bill, I will ask one question? How frequently during the past week or so have you heard various Dems who voted yes say they are either voting no (in the case of the Stupak bloc), leaning no or undecided. Such statements come out every single day. Now ask yourself how many times have you heard Dems who voted no say they are leaning yes or will vote yes? There have been about two No votes say that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 11:59 AM    in reply to masanf

Fair enough. Time will tell. If I am wrong about this, it will certainly not be the first time in my life.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 12:01 PM    in reply to masanf

I thought I smelled troll shit! Lo and behold, it's masanf!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 12:07 PM    in reply to FreeRider

To read his response, one rather wonders whom he is trying to convince - the rest of us or himself. His response reads like nothing so much as whistling past the graveyard to my eye.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 12:10 PM    in reply to A Missouri voter

He's always here doing a whip count on Democratic bills.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 2:54 PM    in reply to AJM

And where were you on the PUBLIC OPTION Steny? You pile of human waste!

Now is this bill about COVERING ALL AMERICANS WITH HEALTH CARE or SUBSIDIZING A FEW THOUSAND ABORTIONS EVERY YEAR?

These clowns have lost the plot and America will pay the price.

This Senate bill does NOTHING for the TAX PAYING middle class.

Get on the phone to your congressional House and Senate reps and tell them your vote in November depends on the PUBLIC OPTION!

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/cgi-bin/newseek.cgi?site=ctc&state=ca

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 11:36 AM   

I wrote to Rep. Stupak last week and asked him to consider how many unborn children will breathe thanks to their uninsured mothers getting prenatal care.

Pro-health care is pro-life.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 11:55 AM    in reply to cleavet

Well said!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 11:57 AM    in reply to cleavet

Excellent point!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 12:10 PM    in reply to cleavet

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 11:37 AM   

Time to get on board or get out of the way. Stupak, your 15 minutes are about up. Same for Guitterez and the rest.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 11:54 AM    in reply to Rick Jones

I saw Guitterez last night on MSNBC. He's doing what he's supposed to do as chair of CHC. He's cool and won't try to stop HCR.

But he has a point: legal residents--who work and pay taxes at the same rates as citizens--won't have access to the healthcare exchange and subsidies. That is grossly unfair.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 12:06 PM    in reply to FreeRider

I'm just saying they need to make their points, and I know they have to, then get on board as I think they will. As for undocumented immigrants, there is a better chance of extending to them the opportunity to buy on the exchanges after HCR is implemented and an analysis done as to cost savings by making insurance available to them as opposed to continuing to provide free ER care.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 12:16 PM    in reply to Rick Jones

By "legal residents" I thought FreeRider meant Guitterez talked about documented aliens, i.e., those with non-immigrant visas (e.g., H1-b) and LPRs (but I might be wrong, I didn't see the said MSNBC program last night).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 12:19 PM    in reply to geofu54

my bad. legal immigrants but non-citizens. but still a way to get to coverage for them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 12:27 PM    in reply to FreeRider

From the article, it looks like the Senate bill excludes legal immigrants from the exchanges for 5 years. That could be amended later down the road perhaps, but I doubt if it will be through the upcoming reconciliation fix. But re-reading, Guiterrez seems to be talking at one point about legals, at another about illigals, and in his statement today he just talks about "immigrants." So, where is he going with this?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 1:07 PM    in reply to Rick Jones

He's advocating for both legal, green-card holding residents and undocumented aliens. He conceded that, although he didn't like it, the undocumented could not use the exchange even with their own money.

But he is outraged, as am I, that legal residents who have all the tax responsibilities and obligations of citizens are banned from the exchange and can't receive subsidies for 5 years. That strikes me as grossly unfair since some legal residents have been working and paying taxes here for 10 years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 1:35 PM    in reply to FreeRider

I understood him to say it was only "undocumented" immigrants who would not be able to buy insurance in the exchange. Legal residents could take part. I still don't see why anyone could not buy insurance with their own money. Do we next tell people they cannot buy groceries with their own money?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 1:53 PM    in reply to emears

The clip is on the front page. He clearly says that legal residents will be barred from participating for 5 years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 12:04 PM   

Pro-life is helping the 45,000 Americans that die each year for lack of health insurance. Rep. Stupak's view of being pro-life is very small. It is time to move on and take a vote for life.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

March 12, 2010 12:29 PM    in reply to BeeClone

Thank you for getting us back on track with the pro-lifer issue.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 22, 2010 12:01 PM   

Thank you for the mp3 dinle information your provide.mp3 indir

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on