TPMDC
Pelosi: I Won't Let Republicans Hijack 'Good Intentions' Of Pro-Lifers To Kill Health Care
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Share
Send to a friend!
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a long interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow yesterday, accused Republicans of hijacking the "good intentions" of pro-life Democrats such as Rep. Bart Stupak in order to kill health care reform.
"This bill is not about abortion. This is about health care for all Americans. And those who want the bill to fail hijack the good intentions of others who have concerns about the federal funding of abortion," Pelosi said, asserting that there is no federal funding of abortion in any proposed health care bill.
But Stupak (D-MI) himself, she said, wouldn't kill the bill over abortion, despite his threats to do so.
"Bart Stupak wants health care reform. This is something he understands. ... I don't think that he's part, that he himself would be one to say, 'I'm taking down health care reform because of it,'" she said. "But I think others who are part of that, who have stronger connections to the Republican Party, do want to bring down the bill."
Pelosi said she those "others" are Republicans, not Democrats.
"I cannot let the good intentions of some on a subject that is very important to them be hijacked by those who do not want health care reform," she said.
Watch:
Comments (13) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Cool Blue Reason
March 12, 2010 10:23 AM
Sounds pretty reasonable. This is going to be a big test of her leadership -- probably The test.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 12, 2010 11:10 AM
So Democrats who disagree on policy ground = people with "good intentions.
And Republicans who disagree on policy ground = people with "bad intentions".
Go it. Now I understand post-partisan Washington, I just needed the cheat sheet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimlscotland
March 12, 2010 11:18 AM in reply to truth > spin
You missed the point or more likely you are spinning. Pelosi did not say the Republicans had "bad intentions". She just said that the good intentions of anti-abortion Democratics were being hijacked by the Republicans to help bring down HCR. Go read the article again - or watch the video. For someone with the the word "Truth" in their moniker I just see a lot of spin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 12, 2010 11:26 AM in reply to jimlscotland
She says exactly that. She says "others who are part of that, who have stronger connections to the Republican Party, do want to bring down the bill."
To her, if Stupac votes against the bill because of the policy it contains (in his view) and it results in the bill's failure, he did so for noble intentions. So he wants HCR, just not this version of HCR.
If the GOP votes against the bill because of the policy it contains (in their view) and it results in the bill's failure, they did so for poorly intentioned reasons. So they want HCR, just not this version of HCR.
I see, that's much more clear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimlscotland
March 12, 2010 11:10 AM
I just hope that Pelosi has a good read on Stupak. In any case, I think Stupak has come to the realization, that given the parliamentary situation that reconciliation cannot actually change any of the words in the bill the Senate passed (and that the House needs to pass)before the process of reconciliation can begin. Stupak and his friends will just need to pick between HCR and their stance on the words related to abortion in the Senate bill (which, if we believe the Dem Leadership, has no effect and does not change the abortion rules regarding federal expenditures as they exist today). I would be surprised if Stupak does not realise that giving 31,000,000 more Americans solid access to health care is actually likely to reduce the demand for abortion according to some experts. He will vote for HCR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 12, 2010 11:21 AM in reply to jimlscotland
jimlscotland, when you say "giving 31,000,000 more Americans solid access to health care", what EXACTLY do you mean by access?
People use that term all the time and I it's become code for something that no one can quite understand.
Are you saying that people are now barred from buying health care (ie, we won't serve your kind here)?
Are you saying that people can walk into any doctors room that want, but that they can't afford to buy the product (heath care)?
Are you saying that there isn't enough care out there and we have a shortage of doctors, nurses and other providers?
Only that last one would make sense of the word "access". But seriously, the word don't really describe anything going on in the USA today.
Sure some people can't afford a lot of health care, and we should help them. And yes the administrative systems of insurance complicate the matter enormously, and we ought to make that more simple too.
But I don't think that's what you mean. I think you want to say care is too expensive but you want to use the word access because it requires a bigger solution to address.
Tell me I am wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ketz
March 12, 2010 11:37 AM in reply to truth > spin
You're wrong.
I don't know why it's so hard for some people to grasp the concept that economic discrimination is still discrimination. If you can't afford something, you have been denied access to it.
The fact that you think healthcare is some kind of perk, that people shouldn't have access to treatments for cancer because they are poor—or have to bankrupt themselves to keep from dying—tells us pretty much everything we need to know about your worldview.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 12, 2010 11:44 AM in reply to Ketz
Economic discrimination?
File that with the Department of Redundancy Department since economics is primarily concerned with allocation of resources by setting a price along a supply and demand curve.
If someone falls outside where the curves intersect, that is not discrimination, it is economics.
If you can't afford something, you can't afford it. You haven't been denied access to it. I can't afford an once front home, so have I been denied access to owning one?
And I'll thank you for not presuming to know my worldview. I don't think health care is some sort of perk or that people should be bankrupted by it. I am willing to put my views on the matter up against anyone's in terms of compassion, economic rationality and outcomes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ketz
March 12, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to truth > spin
I'm sure it's of great comfort to believe that rich and poor alike have the some right to die from lack of healthcare.
So if someone cannot afford food—and no food is made available to them— they aren't being denied access to food? It's just economics. I see. I'm sure the outcome will be just fine.
You're compassion and rationality are truly a sight to behold.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 12, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to Ketz
They haven't been denied anything.
Denial requires an affirmative action on someone's part to preclude you from getting it on the same terms as everyone else in a given situation.
If someone can not afford food and none is given them, they aren't denied access to food - they are denied food.
And of course someone in that situation should be supported, given food by other people or the government or what-have you.
I am not arguing that we should not reform health care or that there should not be really solid subsidies for care, but let's be clear about it.
No one is being denied anything. People can afford health care or they can't, and some who can afford it choose not to buy it. But in none of those situations is someone denied access anymore than we are denied access to anything else we can't or won't pay for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PingGuy
March 12, 2010 11:22 AM
Stupak DID say that he would kill this over abortion but I'm not sure that he will. If he does I'll be finding a way to help his new primary opponent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 12, 2010 12:03 PM
Please don't feed the troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
libdevil
March 12, 2010 1:56 PM
Good intentions? Seriously? Blatant misogyny and ignoring the Constitution in order to force your religious beliefs onto more than half the country is what counts for good intentions these days?
Stupak doesn't have good intentions, he's an evil, hateful fanatic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?