Wasserman-Schultz: We Will Kill Stupak Amendment
The war within Democratic ranks over the anti-abortion Stupak amendment is rapidly heating up, and Dem Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz threw down the gauntlet on MSNBC moments ago, vowing that she and others are doing all they can to kill the provision.
Wasserman-Schultz — whose voice carries a fair amount of weight among liberals in Congress — said that she’s confident the amendment will be gone in the end:
This standoff is not going away — it’s firing up the blogs as we speak — and given that Stupak was specifically inserted to win over the number of moderates necessary to pass the House bill, it makes the politics going forward considerably more complex.
One side point: It will be much tougher for pro-choice Dems to cave and support the bill with Stupak than it was for House progressives to cave and back the bill despite its lack of a robust public option.
Here’s why: Because the public option had initially been written off for dead, the version liberals did secure allowed them to claim they had won something. By contrast, Stupak is a significant step backward for advocates of abortion rights and women’s health issues. So it will be much tougher for pro-choice House Dems to back a final bill with Stupak in the end. This will intensify.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
@Greg: Can you or a reader here clarify? “Stupak’s language not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public insurance option included in the House bill. It would also prevent private plans from offering coverage for abortion services if they accept people who are receiving government subsidies.”
Does that mean that private insurance carriers that do NOT accept subsidized customers can offer abortion services? And does that mean that it is possible for a private insurer to not accept subsidized patients, period?
Does that mean that private insurance carriers that do NOT accept subsidized customers can offer abortion services?
From what little I’ve read elsewhere I suspect this point is probably moot. If the health insurance industry decides it won’t make as much money that way they won’t want to offer policies that cover abortion.
(GAH. Apologies for the subject-verb disaster……)
Wow, it’s definitely been heating up on this blog.
lmsica, I think it’s an important story
sbj, rundown on Stupak here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/9/802519/-What-the-Stupak-Pitts-Coathanger-Amendment-Does
You’re right Greg, it’s a huge story and one that could possibly derail the bill. I was just referring to one of our resident crusty old white guys who has no respect whatsoever for women or their reproductive rights. Reminds of watching the old f@rts trying to shout the gals down Sat. night like a bunch of petulant 7th. graders.
Thanks, Greg. That’s an interesting analysis. I am wondering, can’t congress offer some sort of amendment to prevent the private insurance companies that want to participate in the exchange from significantly changing what their plans cover? That is, if Aetna currently offers X number of plans that offer abortion coverage, couldn’t congress force them to continue to offer such coverage if they want to participate in the exchange? The plans would only be available to those who are not subsidized but the availability of coverage would not change.
Didn’t Stupak admit afterwards that the bill would have passed even without his amendment, and that he successfully bluffed the leadership?
Nick, if that’s true, I missed it.
Stupak’s another of the residents at “The Family” C St. residence, although he disavows any knowledge of what goes on there.
@Greg: Weekly Standard also agrees: “Killing the Stupak Amendment Wouldn’t Have Killed the Bill”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/killing_the_stupak_amendment_w_1.asp
I think this amendment will be stripped out during conference I am not very worried. Of course, we should contact our representatives about it, but I am confident it will be removed. The majority of people who voted for the amendment voted against the final bill.
“The majority of people who voted for the amendment voted against the final bill.”
Yes, but I believe 42 Dems voted for the amendment and the bill, and one Republican. Pelosi can only afford to lose 3 of these…
Time for a Henry Hyde Commemorative Pro-Life bill.
Progressives should draw up the bill.
It should ban any Federal Funds being spent on life taking weapons, of all kinds.
It seems like Henry would have supported such a bill, since he was so pro-life, and never wanted to have the government engaged in funding activities that took lives.
I suppose they should also forbid any Federal Funds being use for Executions, or in trials that seek the death penalty. One can not be just a little bit pregnant, when it comes to these things. Federal Funds must not be used for anything that causes the taking of lives.
I know you agree with me on this, all you ardent pro-lifers; so contact your reps. and demand that they pass this new bill.
“I think this amendment will be stripped out during conference I am not very worried.”
Well I feel more confident after Debbie W-S weighed in.
We can kill this amendment.
Liam, since none of them have an ironic bone in their bodies don’t hold your breath. It’s astounding, really.
As I said earlier they should also give back all the campaign money received from any insurance companies or groups that offer abortion to their customers.
And, what are the names of the Representatives and Senators who have accepted “blood money” from health insurance corporations who offer abortions again?
And, how do they justify accepting that money?
And, how do they justify accepting that money while denying a legal procedure to poor women?
Oh, yes, now I remember why I don’t have the answers to these questions…no one’s going to ask them!
“As I said earlier they should also give back all the campaign money received from any insurance companies or groups that offer abortion to their customers.”
I’ve pointed out many times that Democrats rail against evil big pharma and yet are the larger recipients of PhRMA PAC money. Inevitably a defender responds that Dems take the money but they work to improve things… couldn’t one apply this to those lawmakers who accept ins co money? They take the money while they simultaneously work to reduce abortions.
@Insimca,
The Vatican is against all forms of birth control. Of course they take no risks, because Altar Boys can not get pregnant.
Which reminds me of an Irish story.
The O’Reagans had nine children, and the mother was still of child bearing age. She talked to her priest about how hard it was to cope with such a large family of young children, and her husband was always wanting more ***. The priest told her to send her husband to see him, and he would counsel him on how to conduct himself.
The husband showed up, and the priest said to him; now Brendan, your wife can not cope with having any more children, so you are going to have to avoid getting her pregnant again.
Brendan; Ah Jazus father, since the church will not allow us to use the pill, that will be almost impossible to do.
Priest; Brendan, you should just follow the teachings of the church, and practice the rhythm method.
Brendan: Ah for Jayzus sake father, don’t be daft; where are we going to find a Ceilidh Band at one in the morning!
They take the money while they simultaneously work to reduce abortions.
By refusing to fund them or let the private industry do so?
LOL!!!
That will only increase abortions.
How much do you want to be that Viagra would be covered in the Bill even though abortion isn’t? Typical male-centric thinking and, of course, the Democrats caved.
“By refusing to fund them or let the private industry do so?”
Refusing to fund abortions increases the number of abortions?
sbj
The right is claiming moral superiority on this issue, yet they accept money from companies that provide abortion services. It is not equivalent to pharma money or even insurance money given to Dems, although I wish they would find another source of funding. What are the liberals claiming moral superiority about? Do you see the irony or not?
@lmsinca: “The right is claiming moral superiority on this issue, yet they accept money from companies that provide abortion services. It is not equivalent to pharma money or even insurance money given to Dems, although I wish they would find another source of funding. What are the liberals claiming moral superiority about? Do you see the irony or not?”
Oh I see the irony – no doubt about it. I also see the irony in Dems calling big pharma murderers (poor folks can’t afford HIV meds, biologics) while taking their PAC money – you don’t see that irony or equivalency?
I am not so sure that anyone is rightfully claiming moral superiority – Stupak amendment supporters seem to be trying to make sure that taxpayer money does not fund elective abortions. Not sure I agree with the conservative Dems on this one, but I believe they are trying to maintain the status quo.
I have never heard a congressional Dem call big pharma murderers, if it’s true it would be ironic.
The status quo was already maintained and all these folks supporting the ammendment are Pro-Life advocates who believe abortion is murder.
Reality Check.
The Stupak Amendment agrees to pay for some elective abortions.That is why it gives the lie to their claims that they are against abortion, because the believe it to be murder. They are willing to pay for some abortions, or murders, as they claim they are.
This amendment is a perfect example of why we shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists.
I know Liam, but you’ll never get anywhere with that, they will not understand it. It is too subtle for their little manly minds. And I’m not referring to all men obviously.
“# JM | November 9th, 2009 at 03:35 pm
This amendment is a perfect example of why we shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists.”
Word.
@lmsinca: “The status quo was already maintained”
I’ve heard plenty of folks claim that the status quo was maintained but my understanding is that the bill wihtout amendment would have permitted private insurers in the exchange to offer abortion services and subsidies would have been available to purchase said private insurance – hence federal money would have paid for abortion.
If the status quo was maintained then why didn’t Pelosi simply not allow a vote and call their bluff?
@Insimca,
I actually am not trying to win over the Right Winger crowd. I am trying to incite them to go after their reps for voting to fund some abortions..
At the same time, I am trying to get Pro-Life Progressives to stand up and fight this nonsense.
I think if we can get enough people putting pressure on those Blue-Dogs, in their home districts, for having voted to fund some abortions, they might get the message, that you will never be able to appease those rabid right wing fundies, and you might as well take your stand with the vast majority of your party.
I’ll be surprised if the Stupak amendment doesn’t get pulled out in the committee conference. The biggest reason was that even with it in there…all the conservative Dems STILL didn’t vote for it. If you didn’t win any votes for it in the first place, there’s no incentive to leave it in.
The Senate doesn’t care, and will likely pass a bill without the god awful provisions in the Stupak amendment. It can go back to the House without it, and you won’t lose any votes because of it.
Keep in mind, when this thing goes back for final passage – that’s when the President will step in full force. At that point, every Democrat in both the House and Senate is going to get a call that tells them it’s not perfect, but they better darn well swallow hard and vote for it. The full, public, weight of the White House will be there. Any Democrat claiming to vote against the bill if the Stupak amendment is NOT included, and voted for HCR passage Sat., is just full of it.
sbj
Federal money would subsidize the purchase of an insurance policy for medical coverage. They took it too far by including private insurers in the ammendment simply because they are part of the exchange.
It’s one thing to say, like medicaid, the PO cannot offer coverage for abortions, but quite another to say just because you cannot completely fund your own insurance premium, we will not offer the same coverage as other private insurers. It’s like saying because you are poorer than other women we will let you fend for yourself, even though wealthier women and families have access to the same coverage. It’s a slippery slope.
Refusing to fund abortions increases the number of abortions?
Yes, it will. One of the perverse aspects of human behavior, and a very famous one at that, is that the best way to increase an unwanted behavior is to forbid it.
Who has more abortions (per person), the USA or the Netherlands?
Especially when the nut jobs who are trying to outlaw abortion, also want to outlaw all types of contraception.
Iliam, it would be nice if some right wingers could be deprogrammed.
The contradiction between “small government conservatives” and “restrict women’s medical choices conservatives” is VAST.
Unfortunately, many right wingers suffer from severe cognitive dissonance and thus are able to hold two completely contradictory thoughts in their head simultaneously.
Conservatives who claim to be for a smaller government would not use government power to prevent personal choices.
The truth is that “conservatism” under modern day Republicanism is hypocrisy and fraud.
“Yes, it will. One of the perverse aspects of human behavior, and a very famous one at that, is that the best way to increase an unwanted behavior is to forbid it.”
Ah, but abortion is not being forbidden, public funding of it is.
“Who has more abortions (per person), the USA or the Netherlands?”
Um… ?
@lmsinca: “It’s one thing to say, like medicaid, the PO cannot offer coverage for abortions, but quite another to say just because you cannot completely fund your own insurance premium, we will not offer the same coverage as other private insurers. It’s like saying because you are poorer than other women we will let you fend for yourself, even though wealthier women and families have access to the same coverage. It’s a slippery slope.”
This is what we do right now – poor people can get medical care through Medicaid but they cannot get abortions through Medicaid. They have to pay for those themselves. The House bill would have created a new federal subsidy that could have funded abortions. I think the Stupak amendment maintains the status quo regards federal funding of abortions while the unamended bill would have changed things up so that federal funds for the first time could have been used to subsidize abortions via private insurers.
The Stupak Amendment chips away at a LEGAL procedure.
It’s specifically designed to discourage, and in some cases specifically prohibit, PRIVATE companies from offering to insure a medically LEGAL procedure.
Ultimately the Stupak Amendment is Anti-Woman and Anti-Choice.
Ah, but abortion is not being forbidden, public funding of it is.
Denying access is de facto forbidding.
“Denying access is de facto forbidding.”
Access is only denied if it comes to pass that carriers alter their current coverage to participate in the exchange. It may well be that instead of altering the insurance they now offer (that includes abortion coverage) they would instead offer new programs that do not include abortion coverage alongside those other plans. In that case no one would be denied anything that they are not currently denied. Poor women are currently “denied access” to abortion in that Medicaid does not provide such service.
BTW – don’t get me wrong. I think the Stupak amendment may be unconstitutional and I do not think it will survive. I do think, however, that the exchange will have to modified to appease the federal funding of abortion foes.
This is so hilarious. Proof again that it was completely idiotic to play up a so-called “civil war” in the Republican Party over the rejection of a candidate who is to the left of a huge portion of the Democratic Party. The real civil war is within my former party. And again, I will be filibustering the Reid bill. Just thought I would let you all know that.
“BTW – don’t get me wrong. I think the Stupak amendment may be unconstitutional and I do not think it will survive.”
Uh, when did the Constitution guarantee that the government would subsidize abortions. This reminds me of those who argued that it was a violation of the First Amendment for NEA to reject their grant applications. They were laughed out of court.
And for those who want the health care bill to pass (it won’t because I am filibustering) my colleague Ben Nelson all but promised to filibuster the bill if the Stupak Amendment were stripped out of it.
Hey Joe:
Perhaps the PO will be stripped in the Senate but then will be reinserted in conference? Or, perhaps Reid will go the reconciliation route? Maybe Reid will employ the nuclear option to get rid of the filibuster? There are any number of ways around you.
I think that abortion is a legal procedure and once the government starts subsidizing folks to buy private insurance we may very well be running into some constitutional issues.
Ezra Klein makes a great catch that the Stupak Amendment only targets POOR women while leaving the government subsidized healthcare of 157 million middle class Americans untouched.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/the_stupak_amendment_as_much_a.html
And “sbj” continues to lose credibility with his suggestion that an outcome is different if he says so.
The outcome of the Stupak Amendment is to deny poor women access to a legal medical procedure.
If Stupak is included, the Dems should not be surprised if all Dem women stay home in 2010 and 2012 as well as closing their checkbooks. This amendment is more than insulting to women. Expand helath care, unless you are a woman, then we take it away. It’s a men’s health care bill.
Rep. Wasserman-Schultz is the one who once gave a speech on the floor of the House insisting that Terry Schiavo be starved to death. This person is suffers terribly from bloodlust.
Why is it that right wingers like “Matt” want to use government power to force limits on Americans personal medical decisions but somehow don’t want to use government power to provide Americans with medical CHOICES?
Right wingers shamed themselves during their Terry Schiavo political manipulations.
Terry Schiavo was brain dead, an autopsy definitively proved it.
And yet Republicans made Terry’s husband live through hell while they politicized his painful decision to take his brain dead wife off of life support.
Republicans made her husbands private medical decisions a national emergency and stopped everything while they interfered at a national level with his personal trials.
And now those same Republicans have fought AGAINST providing Americans with health coverage.
Instead, Republicans have chosen corporate-medical-industry profits over the lives of THOUSANDS of Americans.
Greg, I understand that this is not a central point to this post but I must take exception to your use of the term “moderates” in reference to those who insisted on draconian anti-choice language in a health coverage reform bill. I will assume that you are referring to Democrats since there was not a single Republican who ultimately voted to pass HR 3962 (Rep. Cao’s vote came only AFTER the bill already had 218 votes; watch the C-Span video feed). If the majority of the public are in favor of health reform with a true public option and also in favor of women’s reproductive rights with little or no restrictions on abortion (beyond the Hyde amendment) then how can Stupak-Pitts amendment proponents be deemed “moderate” when they are clearly outside the mainstream on both health reform and abortion?
They’re moderate alright, moderate Republicans, Democrats In Name Only. Please refrain from such marginalization of advocates of health reform and women’s reproductive rights.