TPMDC
Pro-Life Dems Start Breaking In Pelosi's Direction
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)
Share
Send to a friend!
This is the week that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) will be forced to show his cards and reveal whether he actually has the votes (and the will) to kill health care reform.
By all appearances, House leadership has given up on attempts to reach an accord with Stupak, and other pro-life Democrats who disapprove of the Senate bill's abortion language. Instead, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others hope that most of them will come to their senses (perhaps after a bit of arm-twisting and pressure from the White House) and vote for the bill.
Stupak himself has acknowledged that Pelosi has probably pulled a couple Democrats away from his group. "The House Democratic leaders think they have the votes to pass the Senate's health-care bill without us," Stupak told the conservative magazine National Review last week. "At this point, there is no doubt that they've been able to peel off one or two of my twelve."
And, indeed, press reports indicate that they have. Pro-life Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) told the Duluth News Tribune he's prepared to vote for the bill. And last week, Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI)--a pro-life Democrat who may or may not have been one of the Stupak dozen--told reporters he'll also probably vote for reform.
That may seem promising for Pelosi at a glance, but Oberstar and Kildee were among the easiest members of the dozen for leaders to win over. They'll also need others still on the fence--members like Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Jerry Costello (D-IL), and Senate hopeful Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)--to hop on to their side. Indeed, all members of the Stupak crew voted yes on the House health care bill back in November. Every member that sticks to his guns must be made up for by converting a different Democrat who voted "no" back in the fall. And Stupak himself is not budging--at least not yet.
"I'm telling the others to hold firm, and we'll meet next week, but I'm disappointed in my colleagues who said they'd be with us and now they're not," Stupak told National Review.
Then again, the Catholic Health Association broke with the Conference of Catholic Bishops and endorsed the Senate health care bill despite it's abortion language. And House Majority Whip James Clyburn predicted Stupak himself would ultimately cave and vote for reform. We'll be keeping an eye on this dynamic all week as we approach the final vote on health care reform.
Comments (194) | 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.
barbara63
March 15, 2010 4:13 PM
I think a group of 25 pro-life Catholic theologians and Evangelical leaders also signed a letter supporting the Bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
March 15, 2010 4:57 PM in reply to barbara63
There is no money for abortions in the Senate Bill. Stupak is just being a tool. A real progressive is going to run against him in the primary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 15, 2010 6:28 PM in reply to DownriverDem
The Obama administration has released a new memo that misleads the public on the abortion funding via community health centers found in the Senate health care bill.
More at: http://www.lifenews.com/nat6119.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kittylc
March 16, 2010 12:18 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
I can't understand if you are just misinformed or trying to actively promote a lie.
Community health centers don't perform abortions. They never have, not in the forty years they've been in existence, even before the Hyde Amendment was law.
The National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC), issued a statement saying that they don't plan to provide abortions nor "are they seeking to, become providers of abortion."
Plus all HHS funding “is subject to the Hyde Amendment, these funds cannot be used to pay for abortions." Which is where the funding for the community health centers would come from.
So even if the community health centers part of the legislation accidentally omitted mention of the Hyde Amendment, IT DOES NOT MATTER, because all HHS funding is subject to the Hyde Amendment.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/senate-health-care-bill-abortion-typo
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 16, 2010 12:54 AM in reply to Kittylc
The anti-choice forces like to keep their supporters scared -- it makes it easier to raise money.
And they never were much ooncerned with truth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 16, 2010 11:22 PM in reply to AJM
"Christians" who "forget" there are COMMANDMENTS they are to OBEY -- MANDATORY --
"Thou shalt not lie."
"Thou shalt not lie against others."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 16, 2010 2:17 AM in reply to Kittylc
The bill authorizes and appropriates $7 billion over five years for services at Community Heath Centers. (This would rise to $11 billion under President Obama’s new proposal.) These funds are not covered by the Hyde amendment (as they are not appropriated through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill governed by the Hyde amendment), and not covered by the bill’s own abortion limitation in Sec. 1303 (as that provision relates only to tax credits or cost-sharing reductions for qualified health plans, and does not govern all funds in the bill). So the funds can be used directly for elective abortions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
March 16, 2010 3:23 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Which they don't plan to do, in their own words.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 16, 2010 8:37 AM in reply to Kittylc
Social Justice is both misinformed and outright lying. You can post facts all day here and nothing wil make a difference. It is almost robotic in its posts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 16, 2010 11:26 PM in reply to lousgirl84
I'll bet he gets his theology from Nazist Beck: Hitler was about eliminating the "weakening" "sympathetic" tenets of Christianity from his Superior Race of Manlimanness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
March 15, 2010 6:42 PM in reply to DownriverDem
What's going on with this story? The first headline kind of fit the story...wondering (without knowing) whether the Stupak bloc would cave. Then the blog post teasing it said the bloc was breaking yes. Now the headline is changed. But the story still doesn't say that...it says we don't know what's going to happen to these votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
March 15, 2010 10:30 PM in reply to DownriverDem
"My twelve."
Proof positive this is all about Bart Stupak going for his "Lieberman moment." Self-centered tool.
Anyone have a web address to contribute to his primary opponent?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
~flowerchild~
March 15, 2010 11:25 PM in reply to FlownOver
Connie Saltonstall is challenging Stupak. Her Act Blue page is here: http://www.actblue.com/page/conniesaltonstall
And also, too:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/f/l/flowerchild/2010/03/a-progressive-democrat-from-th.php
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 16, 2010 2:18 AM in reply to ~flowerchild~
Remember Ned Lamont?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill57
March 16, 2010 9:42 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Remember Barrack Obama? 10 million vote majority...Yeeha!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
March 16, 2010 2:18 AM in reply to DownriverDem
Federal law prohibits federal funding for abortions, so the Stupik amendment is asinine.
This "Stupik Amendment" deals with private money buying a private service. Conservatives should be up in an uproar if the feds are trying to regulating private industry.
Ah, wait...
I was just told to be quiet. Making sense don't go well if you are crazy. Didn't mean to make a logical argument. Sorry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 15, 2010 6:24 PM in reply to barbara63
Nancy Wisdo, USCCB associate general secretary, said March 15 that the bishops' stand on the Senate bill has been "absolutely clear and consistent."
"The bishops have the duty to teach what the Catholic faith teaches on human life and dignity and to apply that teaching to specific questions that arise as in the case of health care reform," she said in a statement. "Other groups within the church have their own experience and perspectives, but they do not speak for the church."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 15, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
The bishops are more conservative than the people. 30 years of conservative popes have promoted very conservative prelates. That's why you get the guys who refuse to give communion to pro-choice politicians and support kicking kids out of school for having two mommies. An lot of Catholics are pro-choice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
elle a
March 15, 2010 7:05 PM in reply to Powkat
yep. I'm catholic and pro-choice.
i understand that the bishops have to uphold what they believe are core beliefs.
I also understand and appreciate that other church leaders are able to compromise and see the good it does for millions, and leave the abortion fight out of health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John M
March 15, 2010 8:22 PM in reply to elle a
This issue has never been an issue among Catholics in Canada, nor has same-sex marriage, which is legal in all of Canada. This 19th century American thinking reflects how behind modern times the thinking of most Amercians actually is. Canadians think progressively, even Canadian Conservatives think progressively compared to the majority of Americans who are way behind modern times.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 9:35 PM in reply to John M
I am sad to say you are right and it is downright shameful.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bvd
March 15, 2010 9:52 PM in reply to John M
19th century thinking??? HOW DARE YOU!? Our thinking is strictly 17th century, bub, and don't you forget it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Shreiner
March 15, 2010 9:54 PM in reply to John M
How true.
But what can one expect when the GOP is steered by a fright-wing fringe ?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
March 15, 2010 10:01 PM in reply to John M
If the Greeks hadn't been decimated by the Romans then we'd arguably all be better off in terms of our 'progressive thinking'.
Just be thankful right wing still can't reasonably invade Canada. Although with your evil socialism up there, it's only a matter of time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joffen
March 16, 2010 12:41 AM in reply to John M
The U.S. is still way better than Canada anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TNdem
March 16, 2010 12:57 PM in reply to John M
Unfortunately, you are right. When progressives in America try to speak out, we are told we are socialists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
March 15, 2010 10:53 PM in reply to Powkat
But, they shuffle pedophile priests from church to church so that that can continue to molest. Now that's morality and responsibility the catholic bishops can support.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
March 15, 2010 8:34 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Giving pregnant women affordable healthcare DECREASES the number of abortions.
The bishops are not taking a principled stance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 15, 2010 8:55 PM in reply to mrut
Remember your principles and compassion for the unborn women who are being aborted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 15, 2010 8:59 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
How about the ones who will be born into lives of abuse and neglect? Do you really think they'll be glad to be born? Do you REALLY think a soul attaches to a blatocyte?
How about the ones born without a brain at all. Do THEY have a soul? Are THEY and THEIR FAMILIES better of with that child born? Do you realize how much it costs to keep a brainless body alive?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 15, 2010 10:18 PM in reply to Cal Gal
The book Theology of the Body by Christopher West describes the different sexual natures of men and women. It may help you with some of your questions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 16, 2010 12:46 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
What on earth in your convoluted thinking can the different sexual natures of men and women have to do with whether or not a soul or human personality can inhabit a body without a brain?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
March 16, 2010 3:26 AM in reply to AJM
Seems to have worked fine for you...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
March 15, 2010 9:12 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
I'm still waiting for you to provide a link to catholicculture.org that recommends using contraceptives to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chico David RN
March 15, 2010 9:19 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
One of the most interesting things - I might say disgusting things - about the Bishop's stance on this issue:
The Church's teaching on human life contains multiple elements that are theologically co-equal and inseperable - the opposition to abortion, to unjust (aggressive) war and to the death penalty.
I will have some respect for the Bishop's position when they put the same investment and the same amount of pressure into opposition to war and the death penalty as they do into opposition to abortion.
How come we never see a politician being threatened with church sanctions for supporting the death penalty?
Answer: this has nothing to do with respect for life and everything to do with control of women.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 15, 2010 10:12 PM in reply to Chico David RN
Amen to that brother!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 16, 2010 2:40 AM in reply to Chico David RN
The book Theology of the Body by Christopher West describes the different sexual natures of men and women. It may help you with some of your control questions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 16, 2010 11:32 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Or may not, lunatic fringer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
March 15, 2010 11:03 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Where is your compassion for the millions of Americans who go without healthcare because they can't afford it? Where is your compassion for the thousands of pregnant women (and their unborn babies) who go without prenatal care because they don't have insurance?
If you want a law that ends abortion, fine, get Bart Stupak to sponsor one. But if you think you're going to end abortion by denying healthcare to millions and millions of people, you are cruelly mistaken.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 16, 2010 2:32 AM in reply to barbara63
I agree that compassion is needed for women whose so-called loved ones do not support their pregancy. Abortion hurts womean, both born and unborn.
Promting and funding abortion as part of HCR does not help them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
March 16, 2010 8:26 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
this law does not promote or fund abortion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 16, 2010 11:35 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Other's health care decisions are actually none of your business. And it is beyond rude to attempt to shove your views down the throats of those who choose not to be subjected to that bullying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 16, 2010 12:58 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
There are no women being aborted. Fetuses that could develop into human beings are being aborted. meanwhile, due to the anticontraception actions of the Catholic Church millions of women who are actually born die.
You assume that women are so selfish that they only care about female fetuses and don't even guess that women have figured out that there are some situations in which it is wrong to create a child with a higher likihood of suffering.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 16, 2010 2:22 AM in reply to AJM
52 million dead since Roe due to abortion, leads one to question the moral gravity compared sadly to other death numbers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Spiffarino
March 16, 2010 2:39 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
It's time to play the GOP way and start cracking skulls and kneecaps. If they don't play ball, they lose things that are dear to them, i.e. committee assignments and chairmanships, funding for pet projects, favors on upcoming votes, etc.
For reasons known only to DC insiders, only the Republicans have been willing to force their agenda on this nation by any means necessary. It's time for the Dems to grow a pair and turn up the heat before it's too late.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dave Adams
March 16, 2010 4:03 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Assuming your number is accurate, it represents intentional abortions. Yet spontaneous natural abortions occur every year by the millions and have occurred since the beginning of time. Many of these occur without the mother even knowing that they were carrying a fertilized egg or embryo.
Is that tragic? to the extent that a woman knows she has lost a baby, then yes, of course it is. In the millions of cases where no one knows its occurred then there is no tragedy. Its a natural process.
If you want to tell me that natural abortion is tragic, then when is the Catholic Church going to start holding funeral masses for the millions of fertilized eggs that don't implant and embryos that don't thrive? I mean the ones that no one knows about.
For that matter, if the Church is so opposed to abortion, why not simply support health insurance reform so that more women have access to health care? Seems pretty hypocritical to tell women that they need to remember their roles as the nurturers of the human race and then turn around and tell them that they're on their own when it comes to getting medical care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 16, 2010 8:34 AM in reply to Dave Adams
Nice try with Social Justice. Forget it. Nothing you are going to say is going to even affect his posting...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill57
March 16, 2010 10:11 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Are you trying to imply that 52 million women died during their aborted pregnancy? You sir/madam are full of shit
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 16, 2010 11:45 PM in reply to bill57
He's also full of shit as to how many abortions are known to have been performed. That information is private. So his "52 million" is simply lifted from estimates of how many were killed during WW II.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill57
March 16, 2010 9:53 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Why would anyone have compassion for a fertilized egg? I'll wait till it's a baby and born to show compassion. At what age do yer Catholic priests start showing their own special form of compassion for these young kids? Wait a minute! Now I understand why they are against pregnancy termination! The more kids to chose from, the better for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
March 16, 2010 3:29 AM in reply to mrut
Not taking a principled stance on healthcare? Last I checked the Catholic Bishops had endorsed the health care bill. Please don't let your rhetoric get in the way of your reading ability.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 16, 2010 12:42 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
And have shown their willingness to wash their hands of the deaths of all the least of these who die because they lack insurance.
Nowhere in the Bible is abortion mentioned.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 16, 2010 2:25 AM in reply to AJM
I remember something about loving your neighbor as yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 16, 2010 11:48 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Your neighbor has a say by whom they will be loved. Your arrogant, bullying efforts to shove your shit down everyone else's throats is HATEFUL.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JBL1955
March 16, 2010 11:51 AM in reply to AJM
True.
In Biblical times, herbal abortifacients (e.g. pennyroyal) were in common use. In addition, Jesus and his disciples lived in a multicultural world among a variety of practices, including abortion, but nowhere in the Bible is there any condemnation of the practice.
Exodus 21 differentiates between killing a person and causing the termination of a fetus: the penalty for killing a person was death or exile, while the penalty for the termination of a fetus against the will of the mother is a fine.
Moreover, there is no mention of a penalty for women who choose to terminate their own pregnancies anywhere in the Bible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
March 15, 2010 10:22 PM in reply to barbara63
Those Democrats are losers regardless how they vote this round, since as Chris Matthews said, the ads with them having voted for the reform in November are taped and should they vote no this round, it will only add to them being flip floppers - good luck on that...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 15, 2010 4:13 PM
As of 2 hours ago, The Hill has it at 36 "No" and 71 "Undecided." With 37 "No's" defeating the bill...still an upward battle...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 4:18 PM in reply to SFCWallace
Jim Clyburn has Wallace on speed dial and gives him up-to-the-minute vote counts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Humanity_Critic
March 15, 2010 4:18 PM in reply to SFCWallace
Any tales of vote counting now, before the reconciliation fix, are useless. The desperation looks good on you though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 15, 2010 4:36 PM in reply to Humanity_Critic
Dude! Long time no read...how are things?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Humanity_Critic
March 15, 2010 4:41 PM in reply to SFCWallace
No complaints man, you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Humanity_Critic
March 15, 2010 4:46 PM in reply to SFCWallace
No complaints man, you?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
March 15, 2010 10:03 PM in reply to SFCWallace
Where have you been SFCWallace? You used to keep me entertained with your comments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SFCWallace
March 16, 2010 12:50 PM in reply to expat46
Working...busy class schedule the past 2 quarters...I still pop in when I can.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 4:15 PM
Contact Nancy Pelosi and tell her, "NO PUBLIC OPTION, NO DEM VOTES IN NOVEMBER!"
(202) 225-0100
http://www.speaker.gov/contact/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
March 15, 2010 4:34 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
No.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 4:39 PM in reply to Zell
[snicker]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 6:22 PM in reply to FreeRider
Double snicker.........
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
March 15, 2010 6:55 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Giggle, giggle...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kayak
March 15, 2010 4:46 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
You might just be rigid like a teabagger. Let it go. It was a good idea but it is a baby-bath water thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 4:54 PM in reply to Kayak
Are you glad I didn't give up on working to get Obama elected? Whatever happened to "YES WE CAN"?
The fact is, WITHOUT A PUBLIC OPTION that people can enroll in by this summer, Dems will be out of office come November. Who is going to tweak it then? The Republitards have vowed to repeal it.
Go to Adam Green's site and get on the phone to your senators and house reps....
"NO PUBLIC OPTION, NO DEM VOTES IN NOVEMBER".
http://whipcongress.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tonnyb
March 15, 2010 5:49 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
You need a Presidential signature to make a repeal, law. Obama won't be signing a repeal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 8:06 PM in reply to tonnyb
Are you joking? They can do whatever they like, they write them after all. There have been several repreals "No child left behind" was a classic example of an unfunded mandate. They hold the purse strings and that is the best type of repeal, because no matter how much press it gets, they can just say their hands are tied, by budgetary constraints.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 15, 2010 6:14 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Killing health care reform for the sake of the public option is misguided at best. The NAACP, the AFL-CIO, and SIEU all support passage of the existing plan. Among health care experts, 45 sent a letter urging passage of the Senate plan last January:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/health-care_experts_agree_the.html
These experts included Henry J. Aaron of the Brookings Institution, David Cutler of Harvard University, Dean Baker of Center for Economic and Policy Research, Jon Gruber of MIT, Theda Skocpol of Harvard University and Celia Wcislo, 1199-United Healthcare Workers East, SEIU. All have spent a large portion of their professional careers thinking hard about these issues.
On the other side we have... firedoglake.com.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 6:24 PM in reply to Measure for Measure
You just can't teach stupid. Forget Jorge... he's a lost cause
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 15, 2010 8:17 PM in reply to lousgirl84
He's on my side but he could try a little humor from
time to time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 8:42 PM in reply to Cornelius
I just don't think 45,000 people a year dying for lack of health insurance is very "humorous".
Guess I'm a real wet blanket.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 8:26 PM in reply to Measure for Measure
Well 59% of the American public back a PUBLIC OPTION. You can quote all of the insiders you want, but that is the politcal reality. Let's not forget, most Washington insiders told us that losing 36,000 jobs was actually an economic improvement last month too.
Last I checked, Brookings was a conservative "think tank", They have never supported a public option.
ALL of the above mentioned have the best insurance money can buy, why would they care about people who don't have any?
They are out to cut the best deal for their members who have the sickest caddilac plans anywhere. They already struck a deal to protect those, now they're ready to sell the rest of us out? NICE!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 15, 2010 8:38 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Unfortunately, 59% of the American people does not necessarily buy you 60 votes in the U.S. Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 8:39 PM in reply to slb
You said it! But, they can sink the bastards who sold them out this November. That is exactly what I intend to do this year. I was played for a real sucker, won't hppen again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
March 15, 2010 9:20 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Jorge, if this bill passes will you then argue that it should be repealed?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 15, 2010 10:15 PM in reply to slb
Baby steps Jorge. Pass the bill. Improve upon it when possible, down the road. Just like Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Watt Childress
March 16, 2010 12:42 AM in reply to CityGuy
Thoughtful people can disagree on whether to support or oppose the insurance mandate package that's being pushed by leaders. I hope many citizens on both sides will support a separate vote on the Medicare buy-in introduced by Rep. Alan Grayson. Linked below is a way to show support.
http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/30019/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=17
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Measure for Measure
March 16, 2010 12:00 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Brookings a conservative think tank? BWHAHAHAHAAHA. It's a center-left one. Further to the left we have Dean Baker, formerly of the labor-backed Economic Policy Institute (EPI, a fine institution) and now from the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
Lots of elements of these health care plans poll well - and the public option isn't even the most popular among them. But we live in a democracy which means that we have to care about the polls *within the swing districts*. Admittedly there are some less attractive elements in play, but I submit your pushing for purity is counterproductive and even suspect.
Look it's ok to be a Republican like Ralph Nader. Some of my best friends are Republicans. I'm just glad we have real choices in the country and don't have to choose between the Republican and Green parties, which share the same goals: electing Republicans and opposing realistic and effective reforms.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
March 15, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
huh. well, maybe if you hadn't worked so hard for obama in the first place we could have nominated and elected a dem candidate who wouldn't have bollocksed up hcr and let the public option get the heave ho.
your good intentions don't seem to have panned out so well with this obama guy wrt hcr. wonder how your good intentions wrt getting hcr killed might pan out...
just saying....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 6:44 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
LOL. Right. Because the alternative had a long history of success in health care reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 16, 2010 1:03 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
Live and learn?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
March 15, 2010 6:57 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
Can you name any? I can't think of any of the Dem candidates how had a particularly strong track record in this regard...
Maybe we should've been working on a nationwide write-in candidacy for Governor Dean?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
March 15, 2010 7:46 PM in reply to ondioline
Mitt Romney passed a universal health care bill. Maybe he should have gotten that support... :p
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 8:36 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
Like who, Hillary? Don't make me laugh. The only candidate who could have delivered REAL reform, Kucinich, didn't have a chance with all of sellouts running the party.
Hell, I am an idependent with fiscally conservative leanings and I sound like more of a bleeding heart than any of you so-called "Dems".
I mean WTF?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
March 15, 2010 8:46 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Do you really think that as president Kucinich could have corraled votes for major legislation? I don't see it. It looks like he's in charge of Dennis Kucinich, and that's about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
March 15, 2010 11:34 PM in reply to mrut
This type of stuff kills me. How many delegates did Kucinich corral?
Pre-Rielle Hunter, lots of Edwards Dems were all chesty about how he was more "working class hero" than Obama... And Republicans were the same way about Ron Paul. I'm sorry: Win a primary. Not the nomination; a single primary, and then come talk to me. Kucinich doesn't have the votes to get a public option in his own county. He probably couldn't muster a plurality for the P.O. in his own neighborhood. Does he even get to decide what the Kucinich household has for dinner? Or does he just wait until Taco Night and suggest tacos?
I don't mean to disparage him; I have a lot of respect for the man and I certainly think we need more people giving voice to non-mainstream, non-traditional viewpoints. And I support a P.O. but that doesn't change the fact that Martin Luther Kucinich can introduce one every year from here to Armagideon and it won't pass if it doesn't have the votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nandemosan
March 15, 2010 7:46 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
I agree with him. The bill as crafted in both houses doesn't even take effect for what, three years? How many people die, become chronically ill or are forced into bankruptcy in the intervening years because they can't afford health care?
Obama was never really for a public option to begin with, let alone the single payer system, and 90% of congress is owned by lobbyist of one ilk or another who are opposed to any changes that affects the profitability of the group they represent.
We will be taking baby steps when what we need to do is rebuild from the ground up. We'll get stuck with these half-assed half-measures, and the system will never move beyond these.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 15, 2010 8:35 PM in reply to Nandemosan
OK, let's say you kill the current bill. How long before anything comes up in Congress again? I can guarantee it will be longer than 3 years. So even assuming that we still have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president at that point, you're going to have even more people dying in the intervening time from lack of health insurance than would by just passing the current bill.
I'm sorry baby steps aren't good enough for you, but baby steps are still better than complete paralysis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
March 15, 2010 8:43 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
YES WE CAN pass this bill, already.
That's what happened to "Yes we can."
Look, JorgeO, I agree with you. I have phonebanked and contributed for the PO, but there's no way on God's green earth that the modest PO of the House bill is worth killing HCR over.
That PO is only important to you because you have amplified it in your head. The actual PO would have been progress--yes--but it was very restricted. It's not worth delaying a vote and risking the whole HCR bill.
And by the way, the Dems are going to get killed this November no matter what, but they could make a better situation for themselves by passing HCR. It's just a matter of how many seats they lose, not whether they lose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 9:19 PM in reply to mrut
If they pass THIS bill that delivers help to only a sliver of a minority in this country this year, there losses will be far greater. I disagree with this inevitibility of losing because its a mid-term.
Look at the Congressional elections of 1934 (remarkably similar to this one). Those were the mid-terms after Roosevelt took office. The Dems SMASHED the Republicansm, picking up 9 more seats.
If the Dems pass a public option the people can fell THIS YEAR, it will have the same results. People elected Obama on change. He is looking more like Hoover than Roosevelt right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1934
Barack "Hoover" Obama
Kevin Baker
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/07/0082562
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
expat46
March 15, 2010 9:31 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
In 1934 America was just starting to recover from five very long years of a deep, bread lines, 25% unemployment, depression. FDR didn't have Fox News running against him 24 hours a day creating a tea bagger opposition movement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DownriverDem
March 15, 2010 4:59 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Like that is going to help the Dems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 5:10 PM in reply to DownriverDem
I don't give a damn about "Dems". I care about my country!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
March 15, 2010 5:39 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
so you want to hand it to Republicans? if you love your country, you suck it up and do what you have to to keep it from harm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 5:43 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Yes he does want to hand it to the Republicans, actually.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 5:50 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I think we've all figured this guy out. Three months ago, he wanted to kill the bill even though there was a public option. Now he wants to kill it because there is no public option. Can you say "bullshit", boys and girls.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 9:16 PM in reply to FreeRider
Judging from some of the replies here, not everyone has figured him out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nandemosan
March 15, 2010 8:18 PM in reply to Viva!America!
No one sane wants that. But there are so many DINOs in the party now, it's hard to tell them apart from the Rethugs on some issues. They may put on a good public face for the more progressive part of their constituencies, but they are just as beholden to the same moneyed, pro-business interest groups as the the cretins across the aisle.
Real progressives would have fought for single payer out of the gate. Real progressives would have fought for not only improved financial market governance, but prosecution of at least a dozen CEOs and CFOs from the major banks and rating agencies. Real progressives would be looking to cut the military budget and then insist on the saving from this being used to fund health care and education. Real progressives would be looking to return the tax tables to what they were in January of 2001.
But, as we, know, there are no progressives in power in Washington and the president is too much of a "pragmatist," which is nothing but a euphemism for someone with no balls.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 15, 2010 8:41 PM in reply to Nandemosan
"Real progressives" would never have a majority in either House of Congress, at least not any time very soon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 8:28 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Yeah, Republicans-Democrats, what's the dif? Obama already punked me an my wife with his promises of "change" last election. Hell, he even conned us into working for him!
That won't happen again. We'll go third party next time out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
March 15, 2010 8:51 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
He didn't "con" you. You volunteered, like most of us in this commments section.
Don't act all betrayed. Life is full of disappointments and setbacks. If you keep working at it, life is also full of occasional triumphs. You've got to recognize them, though. Grow up, brother!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 8:55 PM in reply to mrut
Yeah, I'm the one that needs to grow up. You fucking FreedomWorks bots are ones to be giving advice on social decorum. Bah,ha,ha,ha!
Loved your work at the "Townhalls" last summer!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
March 15, 2010 10:16 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
This comment says way more about you bud.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
March 17, 2010 12:04 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
All you ever peddle are inedible sour grapes.
Admit it: you're a right-wing Republican deluding yourself that you know the meaning of "independent".
AND also lying that you're an "independent".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 6:27 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Yeah you prove it everyday don't you.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
concerned parent
March 15, 2010 7:52 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Paid health care troll alert.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 9:04 PM in reply to concerned parent
I bet these FreedomWorks bots are working for minimum wage and don't have any benefits either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 9:36 PM in reply to concerned parent
I presume you are referring to Orwell???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lord Mike
March 15, 2010 4:22 PM
I hope that Clyburn isn't counting on Stupak's vote, 'cos I don't see him voting yes... he's too delusional.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 4:25 PM
Bart Stupak's alternatives in order of desirability:
1. Bill passes without his vote. He gets to have his cake and eat it too. He can tout his pro-life credentials while not having to answer for the bill's failure.
2. Bill passes with his vote. He'll have to extract some kind of fig leaf concession which won't buff his pro-life credentials as much as #1, but it's the next best thing.
3. Bill fails by one vote - his. He's persona non grata in the Dem caucus forever. He really, really, does not want this outcome.
Other members of his gang of 12 have much the same list of alternatives. In the end the bill will pass. All this is really about is a game of chicken to see who has to accept door #2 and who gets to claim door #1. None of them want #3.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kayak
March 15, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Hey mans be: I agree with much of what you say but I have to disagree with #3. I think Stupak would relish #3 in some perverse way. First off he does not really care what fellow democrats think of him. He is assured of reelection in his district no matter what he does. With his opposition and his position as a devout Catholic he bypasses purgatory and goes straight to heaven while "saving those babies" (who are as young as one nanosecond old in his opinion). If he were a rational person he would recognize that the Hyde Amendment already does what he wants to do and that health care reform does not fund abortion. He is not a rational man. He is assuring his standing in the Pro-Life (Anti-Choice) community through grandstanding and securing his place in heaven. The Pope likely sends him nice letters that he frames.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 4:53 PM in reply to Kayak
I don't know that he's necessarily reassured of reelection in his district. It's not exactly a liberal part of Michigan and he's already got a primary challenge on his hands. If the party gets behind his challenger, he's got to spend money in the primary, and is probably toast in the general. I think if the ship goes down a lot of Dems go with it.
This is kind of a prisoner's dilemma in reverse. All of the "Stupak 12" would like to hold out for first prize, but they know that if some don't settle for 2nd they all wind up with the booby prize. So they're all trying to hold out hoping someone else gives in first. And it's made more complicated by the fact that no one really knows yet how many are going to have to settle for 2nd. It's the kind of situation that drives whips crazy because it will probably go right down to the wire because the last few flips will hold out as long as possible. In the end it will pass, but Clyburn is going to earn his stripes this week.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kayak
March 15, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I think you may well be correct about the others in the Dems-vote-no mix, but I don't think so with Stupak. His district was long controlled by a moderate republican predecessor who left office under an ethics cloud. I live in his district. Connie Slatenstall is challenging him in the primary but she is pretty liberal and will be hard pressed to prevail (but she has my vote!). Another factor that may play in is pro-life republicans crossing over in the democratic primary to reward Stupak for his "courage". He fights gun control, flaunts his religious credentials and loves snowmobilers - tailor made for the Michigan UP (Upper Peninsula) part of his district. As a resident of the "C" Street residence owned by "The Family" he has the fundamentalist vote. He is, sadly, in no trouble for re-election in my estimation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 6:01 PM in reply to Kayak
If you live in the district, I'll defer to your knowledge of local politics. But don't you think he still comes out badly if the bill fails? If the Dems don't get behind him he could face a viable challenge from the Republicans. Even if he wins, if the Dems lose their majority he becomes a nobody. And Michigan stands to lose more than most states if the Republicans get control of Congress. It seems to me that he still fares better if the bill passes, as long as he can extract some kind of fig leaf concession so he can pretend he stood up for the pro-lifers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kayak
March 15, 2010 6:42 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
We will see. I don't think Stupak will change his mind so the impact of his vote is not a factor. I do think some of the others will change their vote and go with the President. I think the bill will pass and have little impact on Stupak's re-election, but I didn't think Bush could get re-elected in 2004 so what do I know?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 6:51 PM in reply to Kayak
If it came down to it and they needed his vote for passage, who knows? Most likely they won't. They'll corral enough other votes so they won't need Stupak. He gets door #1.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 15, 2010 6:08 PM in reply to Kayak
What about Republican faithful crossing to vote for his primary opponent so the GOP candidate wins in the general? And Independent pro-choicers getting off their duffs to punish Stu[ak?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
March 15, 2010 10:01 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
You failed to add option #4: same as option #3, except that when the Democratic leadership comes after him, he decides not to run for re-election, allowing the Republicans to pick up his R+3 PVI district. His pro-life credentials remain intact, he gets his House pension plus a cushy lobbying job and he sticks it to the liberals who tore him down on his way out the door.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 16, 2010 1:10 AM in reply to jdb316
Ambition runs hot in politicians -- despite the goody bag on his way out the door it would sting -- and he certainly was not expecting all the backlash he has been whining about.
It would be a nice object lesson for other politicians as well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
March 15, 2010 5:03 PM
To add to Point #3: the bill fails, he has to answer for its failure, AND he has to explain that he voted for it before he voted against it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 5:09 PM
Great article from Politico with exit poll info on why Massachusetts (an overwhelmingly Democratic state), said they voted Scott Brown...
"Forty-six percent — a plurality — said their vote was intended to "send a message to Washington," a popular refrain repeatedly echoed by Brown on the campaign trail. Fifty-five percent concluded the country is on "the wrong track."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31708_Page2.html#ixzz0iHWd12s2
The Mass Health care plan is very similar to the one Obama and his Congress are advocating. It has NO PUBLIC OPTION and costs for patients have not come down. Obama has the chance to turn this coming November election right now with a PO.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31708.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 6:26 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Yes, we thrive on Politco's reporting here......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
March 15, 2010 6:26 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
"Great article from Politico..."
that's as far as i need to go before i start looking for the ignore button.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 8:08 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
Yeah, you guys better get back to WorldNetDaily, we'll keep pushing for REAL reform here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
March 15, 2010 8:47 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
It's true that the current bill is too conservative. Nobody here is arguing against that premise. But there's a destructive way to fight for better laws and there's a constructive way. The destructive way is to yell "KILL THE BILL!" and settle for nothing less than single payer or a PO. The constructive way is to take the tack of the SEIU and start threatening to revoke campaign dollars and primary conservative democrats if they don't help the cause. The former results in Dems who vote more liberally but fewer of them by making Dems ineffectual; the latter results in Dems who vote more liberally without putting us in danger of conservative rule. Both "send a message".
I can understand and respect your principles (probably pretty close to my own) and your desire to fight tooth and nail for them. The disagreement is over tactics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 9:00 PM in reply to worthy9
Oh yeah, I'm already on board with the third party candidates in my state. If there is no PO or an expansion of Medicare to all in the final bill that helps Americans without insurance at least by this summer, I will do everything in my power to defeat Patty Murray in my state.
There are already several people lined up to take her on. If its a Ralph Nader repeat all over this country, I won't give a damn.
This bill is bad for America and a great boon to the insurance and pharma corproations. Let the chips fall where they may come November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
worthy9
March 16, 2010 1:14 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
That's the opposite of what I meant. A third party candidate who, generally speaking, has no chance of winning takes votes away from those who hold views closer to your own in the election that matters. Supporting a liberal primary challenger does not.
I'd prefer to pressure our representatives in a way that doesn't shoot ourselves in the foot; a moderate democrat is always better than a republican of any stripe.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LAB
March 15, 2010 5:12 PM
Stupak is a former state trooper. Perhaps we should write the bill in ticket form, and see if he can understand it then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kayak
March 15, 2010 5:55 PM in reply to LAB
He went to law school after the state police stint and bacame an attorney. Maybe we could just put him on "retainer".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
March 15, 2010 5:15 PM
"…despite it's abortion language."
No, dammitt, no, no, no, no, NO!
"Its!" No apostrophe! The word is a possessive pronoun, not a contraction of "it is!"
You never write "hi's," do you?
Love and kisses,
Your friendly neighborhood grammar Nazi
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
we r all husseins
March 15, 2010 5:42 PM in reply to FlownOver
Agreed. "it's" is a contraction of "it is", not the possessive form.
It's just as easy to get these things right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to FlownOver
I guess were just talking to ourselve's. ;-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
March 15, 2010 5:45 PM in reply to FlownOver
TPM's proofreader should be primaried immediately!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
March 15, 2010 5:59 PM in reply to FlownOver
Hi is what?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 15, 2010 8:49 PM in reply to FlownOver
Oy. Somebody please tell me when apostrophes became as complicated for most people as integral calculus! I mean, gee -- isn't this covered in 3rd grade?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ignacio
March 15, 2010 5:36 PM
Abort Stupak already!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 5:48 PM
this all seems like a diversion to what is in the Senate bill:
NOW President Terry O’Neill called the Senate bill “a health insurance bill for half the population and a sweeping anti-abortion law for the rest of us.”
Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards said the Senate language would leave “tens of millions of women without abortion coverage,” and called it “the most significant restriction in access to abortion coverage in the nearly 35 years since the U.S. Congress first adopted the Hyde Amendment.” She condemned the bill, saying “it is a sad day when women’s health is traded away for one vote.”
NARAL’s called the abortion restriction in the Senate bill a “dangerous provision. NARAL President Nancy Keenan called it “outrageous” and said “the language regarding abortion coverage comes at too high a price for reproductive health. Thus, we must oppose this new Nelson language.”
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ethan
March 15, 2010 6:00 PM in reply to Indie Pro
It can't be taken out by reconciliation, I'm sorry. Except if the VP or a 60 vote resolution overrules the parliamentarian.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 15, 2010 6:00 PM in reply to Indie Pro
January 26, 2010 – The health care reform conference process is stalled by a Congressional special election in Massachusetts. Planned Parenthood supporters emailed Congress urging them to move forward and pass health care reform.
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/healthreform/
"The Stupak and Nelson measures are outrageous, but the health-reform bills do have many positive provisions. They will significantly improve women's access to other reproductive-health services, including family planning and prenatal care." NARAL Pro-Choice America
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2010/pr03032010_hcrlegislationstmt.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to Indie Pro
What kind of abortion coverage will they have if the bill fails?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 16, 2010 1:14 AM in reply to mans_best_friend
The likelihood is the more women will have abortion coverage if the bill fails than if it passes. It now comes automatically with many private policies and if this bill passes, states can ban insurance companies from using the state exchanges to sell any policy offering abortion.
It is a diaster for choice but is offset by the lives it saves by provinding medical insurance to those without.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
March 15, 2010 6:23 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Just another democratic constituency, and usual platform item under the bus for a november talking point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
March 15, 2010 6:58 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Bro, I hate to break this but this site has been overrun by ... people with agendas other than expressing their honest opinions. Try Plumline. I'd welcome your input and I think others there will too. Keep the faith.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 7:26 PM in reply to wbgonne
Bye to both of you..........don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out....take IndiePro with you. I am sure they will all love you over at the PlumLine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 15, 2010 8:34 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Can I stay? Please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
March 15, 2010 9:11 PM in reply to wbgonne
Yep, FreedomWorks has sucked all of the air out of here. Just listen to these corporatist peieces of human waste. But you know what? If somebody doesn't call them out, this country is going down the tubes. Hang in there and refute their feeble arguments at every turn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 15, 2010 9:45 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
You are starting to believe your own bullshit aren't you, Jorge? Lol
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
March 15, 2010 10:20 PM in reply to wbgonne
Give me a break. If you were here at all during '08, this is nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ComradeAnon
March 15, 2010 6:09 PM
I am a pro-choice democrat and I'm pro-life. Who the hell is anti-life? I'm insulted to be thrown in with the likes of Stupak. Lets stop calling anti-abortion, anti-choice, anti-women Democrats pro-life. Why are you agreeing to republican definitions?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kayak
March 15, 2010 6:48 PM in reply to ComradeAnon
A good point, ComradeAnon. The term Pro-Life was very likely tested very carefully before focus groups. A calculated decision no doubt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 15, 2010 8:50 PM in reply to ComradeAnon
Yes, because anyone that doesn't see things exactly as I see them is wrong!
WRONG I TELL YOU!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
March 15, 2010 8:57 PM in reply to FreemanW
Wow, TPM caughs up a firball. My post was a response to the Presidential star fucker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 15, 2010 8:54 PM in reply to ComradeAnon
Very astute. Never could get passed the "pro-life" narrative. Works well though. Mostly bec of the idiot talking heads that buy into it. And their guests never stop and ask "what do you mean am I pro-life or pro-choice"? No one wants to discuss it bec their lazy, as it makes for easier conversation if simply accepted, meaning you're one or the other - no you can't be both. It COMPLICATES the conversation.
And may I add, having spent too much time getting a "good catholic education" (and beating), watch out for Supreme Roberts and his fellow catholics on the court(COTC). It is their mission (seriously) to overturn Roe v. Wade. I know these types, and yes they see it as their mission.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 16, 2010 9:03 AM in reply to Cornelius
We agree on something and we have something in common - we both got good catholic educations (and beatings)-- mine was so good it cured me of ever wanting to be a catholic ever again and in fact turned me into an atheist over time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
March 15, 2010 6:10 PM
T.R. Reid had a great piece in Sunday's Washington Post making the case that passage of health care reform would reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. even if the legislation provided for full coverage.
He notes that in countries with universal health care and free abortions, like the U.K., the abortion rate is much lower than in the U.S. One big reason is that pregnant women who know their health care and that of their baby will be fully covered are a lot more likely to carry their pregnancy to term.
In other words, Stupak's not only wrong -- he's being completely counter-productive and utterly stupid.
Well worth a read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 6:13 PM in reply to Moose49
"Stupak's not only wrong -- he's being completely counter-productive and utterly stupid."
Say it isn't so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 15, 2010 8:56 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
There's a reason there's not much distance between "Stupak" and "stupid".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Bob
March 15, 2010 6:43 PM
I didn’t know Oberstar was one of the ‘Stupak 12’ (Why does that remind me of Stalag 13?), but it doesn’t surprise me that he came around on the health care bill.
I don’t live in Oberstar’s district but I do live in Minnesota and my gut reaction is Minnesota DFL’ers would come down on him like a ton of bricks if he voted against HCR. That would be especially true if the reason for his ‘no’ vote were anti-choice abortion politics.
Usually when you see Oberstar’s name in the paper it’s around transportation - his signature issue. If it became widely known that he stonewalled HCR over abortion I think local DFL’ers who have a vague but benevolent concept of him would change their opinions. Whatever support he gets from outside his district would crater.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 15, 2010 7:43 PM
Breaking Pelos's way my ass. Three more Dems came out today and stated they would not vote for the bill because of the abortion language and they are Steve Driehaus, Chris Carney and Jerry Costello. And another non-Stupak Dem, a No vote that the Dems claimed was on the brink of switching, John Adler, said he was now a definite No.
The only two people this article can mention is Jim Oberstar and Dale Kildee, and we knew about them over a week ago. Furthermore, Kildee told a Catholic organization that he was misquoted by Roll Call and he never indicated he was a yes vote.
There is not one single No vote that has come out and said "I am now going to vote yes on this". Not a single, solitary one. The same can't be said for former yes votes. And this is supposed to be "breaking Pelosi's way"? Hell even this very same article contradicts its own momentum talk with this statement:
"That may seem promising for Pelosi at a glance, but Oberstar and Kildee were among the easiest members of the dozen for leaders to win over."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
concerned parent
March 15, 2010 7:55 PM
Its going to pass, and those dems who oppose it will suffer the consequences. The whole pro-life issue is b.s. and just a cover
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 15, 2010 7:56 PM
And to demonstrate how unpopular taxpayer funding for abortion is, The Susan B. Anthony List is releasing poll results that show voters in seven Democratic districts oppose it. With this newest poll, the group has surveyed a total of 19 districts. This round includes: Reps. Joe Donnelly, Dale Kildee, James Oberstar, Allen Boyd, Earl Pomeroy, Richard Neal and John Barrow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
March 15, 2010 8:04 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Not sure what the point is since there isnt taxpayer funding for abortion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 15, 2010 8:57 PM in reply to musgrove
Under the Senate health care bill that will be the main bill Obama and Democrats push through Congress, there is no ban on abortion funding. While some states can opt out of funding abortions under the plan, taxpayers in other states will be forced to pay for them.
The bill contains other pro-abortion problems that are concerns for pro-life advocates.
The bill requires that at least one health care plan be promoted across the country that pays for abortions, more abortion funding would come via the affordability credits, and many of the so-called limits on abortion funding in the Senate bill are temporary and could expire or be overturned at a later date.
The Senate health care bill also pays for abortions under the Indian Health Service program.
And it contains the Mikulski amendment that would allow the Obama administration to define abortion as preventative care and force insurance plans to pay for abortions.
Finally, the Senate bill does not contain language needed to offer full conscience protection for pro-life medical workers and facilities.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
March 15, 2010 9:06 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Wait a minute. That's coverage for abortion to save the life of the mother. Do you oppose that? You think the mothers should die?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
March 15, 2010 9:08 PM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
The Hyde amendment already bans federal funding for abortion, so it's already been done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
March 15, 2010 9:22 PM in reply to mrut
Are you trying to convince this turd with facts? Seriously?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 16, 2010 1:22 AM in reply to SocialJusticeForAll
Stop parroting. Provide cites and respond to corrections. Hyde applies to your argument that such and such could be used for abortions is ridiculous. This is like saying funding the VA is promoting abortions because there are now female soldiers and no one has imported the Hyde Amendment into the VA funding language. Stop being more of an idiot than you can help.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocialJusticeForAll
March 16, 2010 2:37 AM in reply to AJM
Some Senate funds are not covered by the Hyde amendment (as they are not appropriated through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill governed by the Hyde amendment), and not covered by the bill’s own abortion limitation in Sec. 1303 (as that provision relates only to tax credits or cost-sharing reductions for qualified health plans, and does not govern all funds in the bill).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 15, 2010 8:49 PM
Well, I ASSUME that any of them that are Catholics are going to obey their bishops and vote FOR the bill.
Stupidpak might not be Catholic, though, as he's supposedly a C-Streeter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 15, 2010 8:51 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Is it my bad? Didn't the Bishops OK the abortion language of the Senate bill?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 15, 2010 9:00 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Not the bishops; the Catholic Health Association. Also, 25 pro-life Catholic theologians and Evangelical leaders.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
March 15, 2010 9:01 PM in reply to Cal Gal
That's the whole problem; language in our healthcare legislation has to be OKed by the Catholic bishops.
God, the Church needs another Reformation to school these stupid bishops about the difference between them and God (that there IS a difference).
-Religious Person Venting
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 15, 2010 8:56 PM
LOL. Bill Maher did a job on his new book on Saturday.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 15, 2010 9:00 PM in reply to Cal Gal
That last one was supposed to me in response to Truth>spin at 7:48. My browser been actin' up today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
El Dragón
March 15, 2010 9:01 PM
Brian, Jerry Costello is a Dem representing IL-12. He's not from Minnesota.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
social nature
March 15, 2010 10:01 PM
Pres. Obama drops his g's and gets all folksy and fired up at the Ohio rally today.
Yawn.
Democrats need this bill for political reasons even if it's a policy catastrophe.
This bill privatizes the federal, public treasury, á la Wall Street's Bailout, instead of reinventing the failed health service industry in the public interest. It's a huge subvention of an amoral, profiteering racket that's screwed the American public for generations.
Medicare for all makes sense: this bill doesn't.
He shafted real HC reform, like the Democrats have on the finance industry, credit cards, or mortgages, just as the DOJ shafted any movement toward making the legal enablers of torture and political leaders who ordered torture actually accountable for their crimes.
The Democrats are marginally better than the completely irresponsible and crazy Republicans, but that isn't saying much, is it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Munguza
March 16, 2010 12:19 AM
As a side note, why does TPM repeat the dishonest propaganda label "pro-life" when citing these politicians?
They are not "pro-life" they're anti-abortion.
Most, if not all of them, support/supported the Iraq invasion, death penalty, military use of cluster bombs and land mines, and forcing women to have children against their will when it risks their own life. None of these policies are "pro-life."
Sure, they call themselves "pro-life," and one generally respects the names that groups & individuals apply to themselves. But it's sheer sophistry --just like the "pro-white" label that racist and anti-immigration groups give themselves.
TPM should not promote their cynical misrepresentations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
March 16, 2010 3:48 AM in reply to Munguza
Ok. You're pro abortion. How do you like that label, mate?
Que your rant about how your not pro abortion but support everyone elses right to make their own decisions about what what side of the street to drive in and blah blah blah. The fact is, pal, no-one ever wants to say they are pro abortion. The whole pro choice thing is a label to let people not lose sympathy by pretending they are not really for it when in fact they are. Its the same sort of sophistry that you are accusing TPM of doing.
And in fact, historically, the pro life movement took its name as pro-life first. The name "pro-choice" came after in response, and was used by pro-abortion activists to pretend that they are not really pro abortion, they were just accidentally fighting like crazy for it by default. The name pro choice is by its very essence a lie.
Be pro-abortion rather than hiding behind silly politically correct names. At least then you will have respect even as you lose poll numbers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
March 16, 2010 1:53 AM
I didn't read all the posts, but I am sick and tired of this pro-life bullsh*t concerning pols that are anti-abortion. They are ANTI-ABORTION, they are not Pro-life. ANTI-ABORTION. Please use the proper label. The New York Times had an editorial today discussing this issue and you know what word was missing from the editorial. Pro-life. They are not pro-life, they are ANTI-ABORTION. This debate is sick and neanderthal and old white guys trying to legislate a woman's womb. It's disgusting and tiresome. Last time, they are ANTI-ABORTION, not pro-life.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rambler american
March 16, 2010 6:09 AM in reply to Michael A
I was just about to post a similar observation. My objection to calling these cretins "pro-life" is that it implies that we who disagree are "anti-life" which clearly we are not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Used Cool Cars
March 16, 2010 1:54 AM
A very nice article have you written.I really enjoyed reading what you had to say.You have lots of good ideas.This is really a great stuff.Keep Going....Thanks for sharing!!
http://www.cheapcoolcars.net/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pvel
March 16, 2010 2:07 AM
I agree with calling these people anti-abortion rather than pro-life. They are against any kind of progress. Also Bart Stupak is a smug prick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Guy
March 16, 2010 5:38 AM
Stupak is pro-life and anti-healthcare????????????wtf?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
March 16, 2010 8:29 AM in reply to Guy
That pretty much sums it up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tduff
March 16, 2010 8:46 AM
This should be an interesting vote.
http://randomthoughtstd.blogspot.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stephen duncan
March 16, 2010 9:40 AM
Are Democrats not in the Stupak camp "anti-life"? Certainly they're not pro-abortion, as no one I know tells a perfectly healthy woman the default way to handle a pregnancy is to choose abortion. I listened to NPR this morning and was confronted with the same framing of this issue. What happened to "choice" as term framing a politician's stance towards abortion? Why isn't it said Democrats opposed to HCR are anti-choice as opposed to pro-life? Abortion is legal. Women have the right to choose it. Describing a politician's stance towards the issue should keep those two facts in mind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TomH in PA
March 16, 2010 10:27 AM
Stupak is probably right that the result of the HCR proposal in its current form will be to indirectly subsidize the funding of some abortions. But, I don’t see how he can craft language that wouldn’t present 14th amendment problems. It seems to me to be impossible to reconcile the individual mandate to purchase insurance in the private market with the de facto creation of class of people who need the federal subsidy and also desire a policy that covers this constitutionally protected procedure.
It’s not theoretical or ethereal. You can picture their faces. Women who receive the subsidy to buy insurance that the government mandates they purchase, are as a class, legally different from everybody else.
If it wasn’t for the mandate, you could say “Hey, nobody’s forcing you to buy this plan,” but with the mandate…
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 12, 2010 7:13 PM
OK, let's say you kill the current bill. How long before anything comes up in Congress again? I can guarantee it will be longer than 3 years. So even assuming that we still have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president at that point, you're going to have even more people dying in the intervening time from lack of health insurance than would by just passing the current bill.
I'm sorry baby steps aren't good enough for you, but baby steps are still better than complete paralysis.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?