Posted on 11/07/2009 3:24:06 AM PST by markomalley
Democratic leaders trying to preserve a high-stakes Saturday vote on a House health reform bill battled a swift current of rank-and-file defections Friday as the White House swung into action to help corral the final votes.
But progress was slower than expected – as a bad jobs number Friday with unemployment eclipsing 10 percent, and Tuesday’s election losses making that job harder.
President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and a number of top aides – including chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan — called wavering members.
Democratic officials said their count of hard “nos” was in the range of about 25. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can afford to lose up to 40 votes and still win passage, there are dozens of other lawmakers who remain on the fence publicly.
Abortion opponents won a huge last-minute concession late Friday night when leaders agreed to give Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak a vote on his amendment effectively barring insurers that participate in the exchange from providing abortions, except in the case of rape, incest or when the mother's health is in danger.
The concession was expected to free up the votes Democrats need to approve the bill, even though reproductive rights groups were expected to vehemently oppose it.
In the end, the Conference of Catholic Bishops couldn't support the compromise put forth by Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth to create an independent monitor to make sure that insurance companies didn't spent public funds to pay for abortion, and a number of wavering Democrats wouldn't sign on to the plan unless the church endorsed it.
“It’s a question of how you can keep everybody together and that’s the challenge before us,” Waxman said of the proposal earlier in the day. “What’s being called the Ellsworth language is also the bishop’s language which is the Stupak proposal. It’s basically to stop any services for abortion coverage in both the public plan and all private insurance. Not just for those who get subsidies but for everybody who goes to private insurance policies.”
“I would like the bishops, who I understand want to see passage of the legislation, to help us work out a way so we don’t have winners and losers,” Waxman said. “Because the losers will make us lose the bill and the winners then wont have won anything.”
Democratic officials said their count of hard “nos” was in the range of about 25. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can afford to lose up to 40 votes and still win passage, there are dozens of other lawmakers who remain on the fence publicly.
In the last-minute frenzy, the landscape seemed to change from hour to hour. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer kicked off the day by suggesting the final vote may drift until Sunday afternoon – or even Monday or Tuesday – if they need more time to find the votes they need.
“There are still many people who are looking to get a comfort level that this is the right thing to do,” Hoyer said earlier on Friday. “We’re talking to members, trying to answer any concerns they might have.”
But Hoyer closed by saying, “My understanding is that we will complete this tomorrow night.” And Pelosi also told reporters that she planned to go ahead with Saturday’s vote on a sweeping $1.2 trillion bill that seeks to expand health coverage to 36 million Americans.
Emanuel peppered his former House colleagues with phone calls, according to a number of lawmakers with whom he spoke. The list included at least one liberal lawmaker who was upset that leaders abandoned plans to tie a government insurance option to Medicare.
Cabinet secretaries, like Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis – another former House member – are expected stick around on Capitol Hill Saturday after Obama himself pays a morning visit to House Democrats in the Cannon House Office Building.
But few administration officials roamed the halls Friday, a contrast to the some of the vote-wrangling done in person by the Bush administration on key votes.
The White House worked a pair of New York Democrats – Mike McMahon and Scott Murphy – on Friday, but McMahon told local reporters that afternoon that he wasn’t backing the bill.
First-year Democrats who came to Congress on Obama’s coattails last November, like New Jersey Rep. John Adler and Maryland Rep. Frank Kratovil, announced their opposition to the central plank of his White House campaign.
“A number of the real underlying problems that we’re trying to address haven’t been resolved,” Kratovil said.
Pelosi spent the day on the phone with wavering Democrats and even a few who were leaning against the bill, like Virginia Rep. Rick Boucher, who voted against it on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Pelosi and her leadership team also cut last-minute deals to reassure those Democrats on the fence. In just one example, party leaders agreed to work with Indiana Rep. Baron Hill to lower a 2.5 percent on medical device manufacturers once the bill passes the House – a fact that remains up in the air.
Asked if the negotiators were any closer to a deal, Whip James Clyburn let loose an amused guffaw.
The universe of no voters represents a broad cross-section of geography and seniority in the Democratic Caucus, from veterans like Agriculture Committee Chairman Colin Peterson of Minnesota and Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri to Blue Dog Coalition leader Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, a fourth-term Democrat from South Dakota, and freshmen Parker Griffith of Alabama and Walt Minnick of Idaho.
Opposition has been particularly intense in the South, where an expansion of the government’s role in health care and the offering of insurance plans that cover abortion services in a new health care exchange are unpopular.
Southern Democrats such as Alabamans Griffith, Artur Davis and Bobby Bright, Tennessean Bart Gordon, Georgia’s Jim Marshall, Mike Ross of Arkansas and Mississippians Gene Taylor and Travis Childers are against the bill.
Abortion got a lot of attention in the region on Friday.
“Christian radio was aflame,” said a lawmaker from a Southern district who plans to vote against the bill.
Oklahoma Rep. Dan Boren has told local media that he plans to vote against the bill, and several additional moderate Democrats -- Georgia Rep. John Barrow, Virginia Rep. Rick Boucher, Utah Rep. Jim Matheson and Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak – voted against earlier versions of the measure in committee.
But Adler and McMahon’s defection illustrate the regional diversity of unease about the Democrats’ bill.
That is a really tremendous development.
If the Stupak Amendment, which will now come up for a vote, passes, it removes a tremendous objection to this bill: forcing us taxpayers to pay for abortion on demand.
That doesn't mean the bill will all of a sudden become acceptable. It just means that the bill would not be directly financing murder on a wholesale, industrial scale...as would happen had Stupak not been allowed to come up for a vote or if Stupak Amend. is not approved.
As an FYI, Stupak's amendment says the following:
No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
By the way, there are a large number of pro-abortion Dhims who state that they will absolutely not vote for this bill if the above language is in it. (Probably more of them than there are pro-life Dhims who state they will vote against it if the language isn't in the bill). So I wouldn't worry too much that this will make the overall bill passable.
The Dhim leadership, in granting a vote to this, is very, very desperate.
Good news ping
Total scam attempt to mislead the people. All they have to do is claim the baby "endangers the health of the mother" to allow the abortion to go forward.
Anyone voting for this bill is voting for abortion on demand at taxpayer expense.
If they all agree to take abortion out of the bill, it really means nothing, They will put it back in later. We are dealing with trash here.I wouldnt trust a one of them to baby-sit my dog for a weekend.
This is NOT a one issue bill. Even if they fix the abortion problem there are about 1,999 other pages to fix.
The Bishops are NOT supporting the amendment. That cuts the feet out from under it, thank God. It’s just a bandaid anyway, not near the power of the Hyde amendment. You know, if Pelosi brings this to a vote and loses after all this bullying it could be the end for her too. Why would anyone continue to follow her after this? Wouldn’t that be something!
None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be expended for any abortion except when it is made known to the federal entity or official to which funds are appropriated under this Act that such procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother or that the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
This has the same verbiage.
And, yes, I know it will disappear in reconciliation.
And if you object to the language, then use congress.org and find your (R) member's number and tell him to vote against the Stupak amendment.
The objective here is to so fracture everything in Congress so that they can't move the bill. So any chaos that can be created is appropriate
The Waxman statement offers a heads-up on how the amendment will be characterized. That’s the ‘out’ they’re planning to offer to those voting against it. “Gee, we really wanted to vote for it, but it would have meant all private insurance coverage for abortion would have been banned”. It’s the old “I’m with you in spirit, but...” cop out.
And it’s not quite accurate. Although it would ban all coverage from the approved packages, and everyone has to have an approved package, the bill allows the sale of riders for coverage of conditions that aren’t on the approved list.
I thought the original Stupak Amendment had “life of the mother”—same as the Hyde Amendment.
Any RINO voting against a Hyde-language amendment for HC can literally go to Hell.
So the bill is already dead.
Broader language was contained in an amendment offered by Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan the day after the Capps amendment was approved. The Stupak amendment would have overruled Capps and prohibited government funding of "any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion," except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The Stupak amendment was rejected by the committee 27 - 31.
to save the life of the mother
This bill "
health of the mother
Those are NOT the same thing. That is NOT the same language. It is gaping fissure any half way competent lawyer can drive a semi truck thru.
“to save the life of the mother” and “the health of the mother” are vastly different things
The Bill could go either way, with or without Stupak.
You know, I really don't enjoy risk, suspense, gamble and all that. Gives me serious jitters. Must be a temperament thing.
“Total scam attempt to mislead the people. All they have to do is claim the baby “endangers the health of the mother” to allow the abortion to go forward.” -—
My thoughts at first, however, to the pro abort crowd, even the language cannot be allowed. It might make people think and they can’t have that.
Something occurs to me: why Federally fund ANY abortions, period? The woman is STILL going to get the abortion; it just won’t be paid for by Almighty Washington.
“Total scam attempt to mislead the people. All they have to do is claim the baby “endangers the health of the mother” to allow the abortion to go forward.
Anyone voting for this bill is voting for abortion on demand at taxpayer expense.”
MNJohnnie, you are 100 percent correct, this is a scam. As soon as they get the votes, it will get changed. The wicked left will stop at nothing to get this bill passed....then re-adjust it to the way they wanted it all along.
Never, ever trust these bastards.
The abortion issue is crucially important but this is entirely the wrong strategy.
The real issue is subsidiarity. Having these worthless politicians throw pro-lifers a bone with an abortion compromise this year does nothing if government wins on the subsidiarity issue.
Once they have control of health care, they will come back and WIN the abortion issue to satisfy their blood lusting base next year or the year after or whenever. This is precisely the wrong strategy to employ now.
A nation led by Pontius Pilates. No matter how many times they wash their hands, the blood of the innocents will not wash off.
They have to have abortion covered how else are they going to get rid of 30% of the population with only the death panels?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.