TPMDC

Stupak Postpones Key Press Conference--But Why?


Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), President Obama

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

In somewhat dramatic fashion, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)--a leader of pro-life House Democrat--has indefinitely postponed a press conference that had been scheduled for 11 this morning, as House leadership seeks a solution to a dilemma over abortion language that's threatening to paralyze, or even kill, health care reform.

Some background here. Stupak, and perhaps 10 other Democrats, are unhappy with the Senate health care bill's language, which they believe expands federal funding for abortions, and they're threatening to switch their votes from yes to no unless they get some sort of deal.

One of the potential deals being discussed--a complicated process called an enrollment corrections resolution--would allow anti-abortion Dems to vote on legislation that would amend the health care bill after it passes. Pro-choice Democrats are not on board with that proposal, and are also threatening to pull their support for reform if Stupak so much as gets a vote on the resolution--whether or not it passes.

It's unclear why, exactly, Stupak postponed his press conference, but a keyed in aide suggests Stupak was planning to announce a tentative deal with leadership this morning, and has likely postponed in order to renegotiate. Another aide says it looks like Stupak isn't gonna get his way...or at least not get everything he wants. More information as we get it. But as always, as major legislation approaches its final vote, things move very swiftly.

Comments (50) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

March 20, 2010 11:24 AM   

ANTI-ABORTION. The Pro-life people are in favor of helping the lives of people with health insurance reform. Schtupak is anti-abortion, not pro-life. Give me a break.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 11:29 AM    in reply to Michael A

No, he's anti-choice. Lot's of people are anti-abortion, but don't try to deny others the right to make their own choice in the matter.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 11:38 AM    in reply to KarenJG

Good point. I stand corrected. My new rant will be anti-choice. In any event, he sure is not "pro-life", that is such an absurd label and extremely annoying for their position.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 12:01 PM    in reply to Michael A

Kinda ironic that the "pro-life" people don't care that 44,000 uninsured Americans die each year. If only they were fetuses, then they would care about you. Sorry, pro-lifers stop caring once you leave the delivery room.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 1:15 PM    in reply to patmcgrowen

This is exactly the kind of thinking that guarantees that there will never be any resolution of the abortion issue.

Think about it: this massive heath care effort, for good or for ill, is going to hing on an issues that the vast majority of Americans agree - have them be legal, safe and rare.

In Stupak's mind abortion = baby murder. You may disagree with that and you may want to debate that a fetus is not a baby and a women owns her body. Fair enough, but that's not what he thinks and your saying he is stupid or ignorant or evil isn't going to change his mind.

There are 1.3 million abortions in the U.S. year in and year out. Less than 100,000 of them are for pregnancies related to rape, incest or where the health of the mother is in jeopardy (not just death). That means 1.2 million babies - using Stupak's reasoning - are murdered every year out of convenience.

Even if you accept the 44,000 deaths related to non-insurance per year, then you still would weigh saving 1.2 million people as being the greater good.

You are free to disagree, and I do myself for several reasons, but that doesn't mean Stupak is ill informed, wrong or that he is badly intentioned.

Look at at from his vantage point and then try working on ideas that are mutually beneficial.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 3:12 PM    in reply to truth > spin

My problem is the hypocrisy. The minute the baby is born it is discarded and uncared for based on the position of the anti-choice crowd. Be consistent. If they want to ban abortions, they should be all for 100% government supported care of the children, including food, healthcare and education. The anti-choice crowd is also anti-support for children or people in general. It is blatant hypocrisy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 3:27 PM    in reply to Michael A

Hypocrisy might be the wrong word, but I understand your point.

At least the Catholic Church is consistent in wanting to stop abortions and then offering rather strong social services.

I suppose if I had to charitably defend the pro-life response would be the only absolute issue is the life or death one - there is are no degrees of the decision possible. Whereas on the social service side they could say we currently spend X billions between federal and state governments, so the disagreement has to whether more is needed. That being a matter of degree.

So far as I know, no serious pro-life policy maker has advocated for the zeroing out of what we spend on children, including food, health care and education at all levels of government. They may want it to be more efficient or even to shift from federal to state or local handling, but I've never seen a push for zeroing the amount.

And it's not as if we spend an inconsiderable amount. You may wish it were more and we might be able to agree that some outcomes would be better if we did spend more, but I don't think saying people are "discarded" is defensible.


Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 1:12 PM    in reply to KarenJG

think the guy got caught with his donor list....They are not interested in the republican diversion! Support Connie!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 3:26 PM    in reply to Michael A

No, these people are merely PRO-BIRTH.

They could care less after the first breath is taken (which is when the Bible says life begins... not at the first cell division).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 9:04 PM    in reply to Michael A

The first words of Jesus Christ in the Bible, were to take care of your fellow man. Love them, care for them and treat them as brothers.
Since the soul is God's and only God's, it cannot be killed by man. It does not die with an abortion. Maybe the person who does it opens herself up to judgement, but that is clearly the Lords....not yours.
By disregarding what the nun's clearly know, Stupak is damming his own soul to Hell, by completely missing the meaning of Jesus Christ. I am a Catholic and I like the nuns, know that you can't legislate people out of a sin. If they want an abortion there is always a way to get one. ..... But, you can legislate getting health care to your fellow human beings. 40,000 needless deaths per year time 50 yrs adds up to millions of deaths due to anti Christian false ideals! The poor and needy are first to get to heaven. The corrupt, unloving politicians will be first in hell. Health care lowers the number of abortions in all
the other Nations that have universal health care!!! By 20 to 40%. So Stupak is a hypocrite!!!
Stupak,you will not survive this abomination you have created with your radical fundamentalist, C-street thugs. Jesus personally will not allow you to survive this!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 11:26 AM   

If it'll get the required votes to pass HCR I have no problem letting the Stupaks and Lipinskis have a vote afterward on an amendment that will fail just to show just how much they are devoted to forced births for poor women. It won't pass even with total Republican support and has the added benefit of proving once again that supposedly pro-choice Republican house reps like Judy Biggert put party before principle when push comes to shove every single time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 11:37 AM    in reply to markg8

Not sure why you think Stupak's amendment would fail. It passed last time, remember.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 11:51 AM    in reply to scarpy

Stupak's amendment was in the house bill, it didn't pass as a stand alone.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 12:04 PM    in reply to markg8

There was a separate vote on the Stupak amendment which passed overwhelmingly with more than 50 Democratic votes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 12:08 PM    in reply to FreeRider

Morning FreeRider. You were in here kicking ass in the wee hours of the morning. You do look like you had a good night's sleep and are refreshed!! LOL.

I am getting so anxious I can barely breathe. I wonder what the deal is with Stupak?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 12:41 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

Hey, Lousgirl! I fell asleep early last night and woke up in the middle of the night and just had to check to see what was going on. Found a couple of asswipes I had to kick around.

This thing is going to give me an ulcer. I'm a nervous wreck. We're going to an arts event this afternoon. It will be a good distraction!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 12:26 PM    in reply to FreeRider

True, but last time around, Stupak passed with the support of a lot of people who are now saying they're comfortable with the Senate language. They'd look stupid(er) if they then came out again and voted with Stupak after breaking with him.
And, Stupak is apparently telling NRO that he's "finished" with Pelosi. Not sure what that means.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 11:28 AM   

Bart Stupi(d)k neither has a brain or a uterus, he obviously will never know what it means to choose. Primary him!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 11:39 AM   

I think Stupak's failed to consider something: the Democrats who force this pro-life amendment will gain less political capital doing that, than helping to pass healthcare.

His measure is doomed to be watered down, diluted, perhaps even be destroyed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AOW

user-pic

March 20, 2010 11:41 AM   

He is being primaried - Connie Saltonstall. Check her out and give her some money - Stupak needs to go.

http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/24052

http://www.conniesaltonstall.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 11:48 AM   

Call his bluff. Let this HCR fail if Stupak decides to make such a stand. Then, come right back with another HCR that includes public option (if not single payer) and pay for it by revoking the tax free status of the Catholic Church. If the Bishops want to play politics they should first pay the price of admission, which is the same taxes all voters pay.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 11:52 AM    in reply to SleepinJeezus

I agree on taxing the Catholic Church if they want to play politics, which they are doing regrettably. However, they are nowhere near as bad or crass about it as the reich wing evangelical "christian" churches. They mobilize for elections and are fronts for republican campaign operations tax free. Tax the sh*t out of those "churches,"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 11:59 AM   

Firedog lake is reporting (via NRO) that Stupak cancelled because there is no deal. He's walking away from the process. So now the Speaker has to peel off whoever is still in the Stupak block.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 12:12 PM   

I'm beginning to think that Stupak is just a publicity whore.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

LAB

user-pic

March 20, 2010 12:23 PM   

There is no deal, Nancy just announced she's not allowing any side votes for anything on this one.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 12:33 PM   

Why do Democrats fall for Republican tricks every time? The idea that this bill enables funding for abortion is an idea pushed by Republicans and lapped up by Democrats without a brain or spine.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 1:13 PM    in reply to pvel

Co-sign. And people like Stupak are just using the anti-abortion smoke screen to hide the fact that they were gonna vote "no" on HCR in any case. At least they could be honest about it with the American people.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

AS

user-pic

March 20, 2010 12:38 PM   

Bart Stupak stated (in an interview on FOX News) that he does not listen to the nuns because these courage women and nuns are "lower" on the Catholic Churches' hierarchy.

Help defeat Bart Stupak in his zeal to kill reform by supporting his primary challenger, Connie Saltonstall.

Visit:

http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/24052 to pledge your support for Connie Saltonstall.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 12:52 PM    in reply to AS

What's the big deal with Catholics anyway? You can just go to confession and have your record wiped clean. Ironically, Catholic women statistically receive more abortions than other women. Maybe if the Catholic Church was less concerned about other women's uteruses and focused a little more on stopping the sexual abuse by their priests, they may have a little more credibility.

Catholic Church-abortion bad, sexual abuse unfortunate.

What a strange religion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 1:59 PM    in reply to patmcgrowen

There are more abortions among Catholics because the church opposes all birth control.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 1:35 PM    in reply to AS

stated (in an interview On fox news). That's basically all you gotta say. Also it surprises me all the time that the Women's groups don't come out in full force against these "women are lower" caveman types.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 12:43 PM   

The abortion issue is very interesting. The first record of abortion was 2600BC. It was widely used in most societies. Yet no direct mention of it by Jesus in the Bible. Some very vague passages in the Bible, yet early Chrisitian philosophers said that it was not considered homicide. Seems like the argument could be made that it is an act of "free will". And nothing in the Bible says that you would not be forgiven for an abortion. Nor is there anything saying that abortion is worse than lying or stealing. Another thing I have contemplated is, if a fetus is aborted before being born with "orginal sin" wouldn't that soul return to Heaven. Just trying to wrap my mind around the whole religious argument. Another interesting fact is that there were on average 1 million abortions a year in the late 1880's when abortion first became illegal and roughyly the same amount just prior to the legalization of abortion. And as with everything else, just making something illegal doesn't make it go away. Seems like the common sense solution is to not have an unwanted pregnency in the first place. With all the birth control methods of today's society, it baffles me that this is still such a huge issue. Use condoms people, it is 99.9% effective.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 12:52 PM    in reply to patmcgrowen

But it is still a sin unless you are trying to get pregnant.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 2:03 PM    in reply to patmcgrowen

The particular irony is that while it doesn't explicitly mention abortion, the Bible does explicitly say that a fetus is not a person: in Leviticus, it says that if a pregnant woman is attacked and her unborn child miscarries, it's treated as a property crime against the father, not as murder.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 4:42 PM    in reply to midnight rambler

Gotta love that Biblical sanctity of marriage. Your wife is your property. I recommend every one to YouTube Betty Bowers for the biblical definition of marriage. Quite interesting.

http://www.bettybowers.com/betty4president/?p=151

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 12:45 PM   

Stupak cancels press conference.

Translation:

Bart told House Squeaker Nazi Pelosi to fuck off!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 1:07 PM    in reply to Barney

No it was apparently just the other way around. She refused to give him a vote, so he had nothing to crow about at a presser. So rather than eat crow, he canceled.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 2:06 PM    in reply to Barney

Hangover?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 2:12 PM    in reply to Barney

Take your head out of Palin's ass, felchmonster...maybe you might learn that breathing 21% 02 makes you see things clearer. Stupak is a deer in the headlights and is going to be primaried. He's shaking like a dog shitting razor blades for his political life. Why not cruise to DC and jerk him off Barney, since you probably learned at a young age how to make men relax. But take of your white hood when there. Lots of Jews & brothers up there in DC...and to you, they all probably look like Obama.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 12:47 PM   

If these so calle pro life Dems are so principled and believe so strongly in their position, why are they hiding? Why don't these 10 members step up to the microphone and tell they country why they might switch their vote on health care? Could it be because if identified, we would see that they all have connections to the same financial backers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 1:20 PM    in reply to GTFOOH

Or it could be that certain asshats who can't comprehend that good people can disagree would make wild accusations about corruption and vote buying.

Let at the fact on the table. Plenty of people who are going to vote yes get tons of campaign support from the same pool of 'financial backers'. And really, if you understood what the bill does you would recognize that the health insurance industry is getting 30 million new customers, very few limitations on their actions and won't face any serious government organized competition. In addition, the doctors and hospitals, who really are the 800 pound gorilla, get off unharmed.

This bill is a health care lobbyist dream come true. There isn't an honest tax payer constituency, so we lose.


Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 2:28 PM    in reply to truth > spin

When you say "we lose", do you mean we asshats or you asshats? And, in case you aren't listening to your own argument, GTFOOH is just a decent person disagreeing with you, with a mild speculation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 3:14 PM    in reply to Leftflank

Fair enough, I can see how my post may look internally contradictory.

GTFOOH speculated that the only reason people would chose a policy option opposite his is because they were bought off by the "financial backers".

It's fair to disagree with a Member's position, but unless there is some evidence to suggest that Stupak et al are being bribed, bought or coerced into their position it's an asshatish thing to say. As if we don't have enough problems with public faith in these people being poisoned by their own actions. That's my first point.

My assessment that 'we lose' has to do with the policy of this bill. I think it won't accomplish what the majority of people hope it would accomplish, was constructed in a manner that will continue some of the worst of what's wrong with the status quo and is going to drain the treasury of significant actual or low hanging prospective resources.

I then assert that since the lobbyists are getting what they want, there is no reason for them to try to bribe Stupak into opposition.

The possible conflict in my argument being that if they lobbyists got what they want, then they bought enough people to make it happen, thus proving GTFOOH's point - even if has the wrong corrupted Member identified.

I entirely understand how that would be someone's reaction. But, my honest view is that the lobbyists got what they wanted not because of object corruption, but rather because our system stifles imagination and more radical change.

Even with the Democrat's majority in Congress and holding of the White House with one of the more liberal (at least when he was in the Senate) people to occupy it in many years, the rate at which real change can occur is glacial. This goes in both directions, regardless of which party has their hands on the levers of power.

The system is designed to perpetuate the status quo unless there is a massive crisis. And, it's a feature not a bug of the system.

So my assertion that the lobbyists got what they wanted recognizes that it wasn't corruption of the sitting Members, but rather the limits on options given the size and scope of what more radical change would mean, given the size and scope of our country and given the size and scope of our other problems, which limit our practical options.

I hope this answer is clear. I know I haven't laid it out very well, but that's the best I can do at the moment I suppose.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 1:04 PM   

[i]Use condoms people, it is 99.9% effective.[/i]

The Catholic Church prohibits the use of condoms. Any sexual act that is not for procreation, is a sin.

Now if priests would just stop molesting little boys...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 4:53 PM    in reply to booch221

So what if it is a sin. Go to confessional and get over it. They need to keep their freaky religion to themselves. It has become obvious that their sex rules are ignorant and hypocrisy. Birth control and abortion prohibited but sex with little boys and running male prostitution rings "mistakes". Just another example of men using religion to oppress and control women. Whatever sexual exploit a man has is excusable, but women are damned no matter what. Good luck with all that on Judgment Day.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 2:42 PM   

It looks like Stupak wants to be
A member of the GOP.
Destroying choice is his big ploy
And that makes him the Right-wing's boy.
Though I'm from Oregon and all,
I'm sending bucks to Saltonstall.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 20, 2010 5:20 PM   

You know what there are lot of things that are sins. But you don't see anyone passing any laws to outlaw gossiping or bearing false witness, I guess Fox News would go up in flames then. It says that dissension and arguing is a sin, but that is the foundation of government. All they do is argue. Even being rich and coveting material possessions are a sin. But we are proudly a capitalist country. Try have capitalism without coveting. Now that's an interesting concept. My point is the whole sin issue is moot. I don't understand why some sins get so much attention while others are completely shrugged off. Either you are equally offended by all sins or shut up about it. Now my second point is that it is time that we nut up and decide to be sexually responsible human beings. There is almost no excuse for having an unplanned pregnancy in this day and age. There are many methods of birth control and it is time to take personal responsibility for the gift of reproduction. I think it is safe to say that no one is pro-abortion, nobody thinks abortions are great. I think energy would be better spent with a mass education campaign on birth control and plainly said if you don't wrap it up, you don't get none.

sing along...

All the single ladies, all the single ladies...

If he wants to get 'em some, make him put a rubber on it.

And that's for all the taken ladies too. We need to encourage everyone to use a condom, we need to make it cool, and fun. Safe sex is the only sex. And now with the gift of the internet and social networking that the kids love so much, who cares what they teach in school. Whatever you put on the internet is way cooler than anything your teacher says anyway. Condoms are easily accessible, non-prescription, and easy to use. If you want to decrease abortions push the pro-condom agenda.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

March 21, 2010 9:54 AM   

Bart Stupak Who?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

June 12, 2010 5:51 PM   

Call his bluff. Let this HCR fail if Stupak decides to make such a stand. Then, come right back with another HCR that includes public option (if not single payer) and pay for it by revoking the tax free status of the Catholic Church. If the Bishops want to play politics they should first pay the price of admission, which is the same taxes all voters pay.

m65 kamagra

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

August 22, 2010 11:59 AM   

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

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on