TPMDC

Pro-Life Kildee Will Vote Yes


Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), a pro-lifer, has confirmed that he will vote yes on the Senate health care bill.

"I am convinced that the Senate language maintains the Hyde Amendment, which states that no federal money can be used for abortion," Kildee said in a statement. "The Senate bill includes a 'conscience clause' and allows states to ban plans that include abortion."

Kildee voted for the House health care bill, which included Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-MI) restrictive abortion language, in November. It's not a huge get -- Kildee's office told TPMDC last week that he doesn't belong on Stupak's list of 12 supporters -- but it's one more guaranteed yes vote for Pelosi.

Comments (11) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

March 17, 2010 4:18 PM   

In the cold light of dawn reality tends to sink in.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcc

user-pic

March 17, 2010 4:22 PM   

I am convinced that the Senate language maintains the Hyde Amendment, which states that no federal money can be used for abortion

This is a specific message we have not heard enough of.

Where's Brad Ellsworth?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 17, 2010 5:19 PM   

FUCK YOU Dale Kildee. I mean it. FUCK YOU and your personal hangup with abortion, and your willingness to hijack health insurance reform because of it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 17, 2010 5:34 PM    in reply to psyclone

umm... Kildee is voting yes, and did so with one of the more eloquent explanations of a true pro-life stance I've seen (meaning his stance appears to extend beyond fetuses).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 17, 2010 6:45 PM    in reply to holyhandgrenaid

Yes, that was quite a statement from him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 17, 2010 5:45 PM    in reply to psyclone

They over literacy lessons free in most communities. Sign up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 17, 2010 6:39 PM    in reply to psyclone

Um, you mean it???

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 17, 2010 6:22 PM   

The last I heard, abortion was a legal medical procedure. Who allowed the Hyde Ammendment in the first place?

I don't hear anyone complaining that federal funds are spent to pay for lung transplants for people who have smoked for 50 years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 17, 2010 7:13 PM   

Yeah if I was a woman, I would definitely want that man making decisions for my body.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 17, 2010 8:25 PM   

Many operate on the assumption that banning abortion is the best way to reduce abortion. That is unsupported. One factor proven to reduce the incidence of abortion is economic security, and universal health care would increase that.

Women who had abortions listed multiple reasons in a 2004 AGI Survey. 73% included inability to “afford a baby now” within their list of reasons, with 23% citing that as her most important reason. These numbers are corroborated by hard economic data. Abortion rates fell nearly 20% during the good economy of the 1990’s, with most of the decrease occurring at the end of the decade. Abortion rates rose again as Bush and the GOP waged class warfare against all but the richest Americans.

In America, a woman must decide whether she can afford medical care during pregnancy, for the first 18 years of the child’s life, and for the remaining childhood of other children. For women on the margins with no insurance, such concerns may border on absolute terror. Even those who have insurance today have no guarantee that they won’t lose it before all children are grown.

Many women decide that the financial cost is too great or uncertain, and that they cannot afford a new child. Women of civilized countries must consider economic factors, of course, but health care cost is not one of them. They have guaranteed coverage, for their lives and the lives of their children.

I don’t suggest that universal health insurance will prevent all financially motivated abortions, but for the uninsured it would totally eliminate a major cost factor for giving birth and raising the child. For some, perhaps many, lifetime health insurance would give them the assurance they need to continue their pregnancies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AJM

user-pic

March 17, 2010 10:10 PM    in reply to Dogger

Pro-choice is precisely that. Having suitable conditions in which to have a child is the second branch of choice. Thus the pro-choice legislators have been supporting the health care legislation although, as noted by Kildee above, the potential exist for states to use provisions of it as an alternate avenue to burden a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

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