Typical Democrat behavior. It will only garner that much more opposition in the Senate for that very reason!
Posted on 11/09/2009 12:42:11 PM PST by EternalVigilance
A House Democratic leader said Monday she's “confident” controversial language on abortion will be stripped from a final healthcare bill.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-abortion rights lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from subsidizing abortions.
“I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won't be there,” Wasserman Schultz said during an appearance on MSNBC. “And I think we're all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that's the case.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
This is good news. It means there is even less chance that it will get anywhere.
Then why did they even put it in there? I may be crazy, but I’m not stupid. I would not waste my time voting on a bill with an amendment that would eventually be stripped—this is not only stupid, but it shows how much wasted time our government spends.
What a bunch of rubes
Well, duh. The rats could never get ANYTHING done if they were honest and upfront about their intentions. Pure cover fire.
What this means is that there is a real split in the Dem caucus..and the lefties are going nuts over the Stupak amendment. So, DWS has to say this to shut them up. Look, assume ( correctly) that’s the outcome she really wants to see....federal fundign for abortions...but tactically, it makes NO sense to say so publicly, and so soon..it basically says that the Dem leadership scammed the Blue Dawgs..which is going to piss them off...unless the pressure from the left is MORE intense..
Typical Democrat behavior. It will only garner that much more opposition in the Senate for that very reason!
They were trying for some cover. They can tell the constituents they put it there and could not help that it was stripped out. They hope people will forget too.
The Blue Dogs were fools but stinking Newt, fat Dede and the RINO GOP party hacks in NY-23 were instrumental in getting ObamaCare passed.
What you say could be true. On the other hand, when those that voted for it are asked to approve with the amendment removed, it could get dicey for some, and an opportunity for some interesting speeches.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that this Rep is so in favor of killing babies, that she wants to make sure that all citizens help pay for it. This is an abomination. She has to know that many feel that this activity is against most people’s religious beliefs, those who have any. At its core, this would be a violation of the Constitution because it forces people to participate in an activity which is against one’s religious beliefs which in turn means that the government is forcing each citizen to accept the “religion” of the government. Where am I wrong?
To give cover to members who WANTED to vote for the bill anyway but needed a plausible soundbite to give to skeptical constituents. As far as the rats are concerned, it's all the same old bait-and-switch game.
Video of Debbie Wasserman Schultz saying she’s “confident” Stupak language will be removed from final bill
http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/debbie-wasserman-schultz-on-stupak.html
You're not wrong, as far as you've gone, but you miss the larger picture. The bill, in its entirety, is unconstitutional, as there is nothing in the Constitution to support any of it...
the infowarrior
The only plausible explanation is that these Reps truly want a larger dependent country to be forced to vote for them. In the end, it will eventually be the government dependees versus the workers. It seems like this is what they want, but it goes against everything this country stands for. I cannot get my mind to comprehend how these Reps believe this is what is best for the people. They must truly be communists.
Hopefully, if it does pass, the USSC will strike it quickly. Wouldn’t that be a riot?
Yes but even more so than what you supposed. The Senate has to pass a bill that ROUGHLY matches the one from the House. Conferees from both bodies then meet to create a single bill which is then voted up or down in each body. So there are 4 more votes (including the committee vote) before it COULD get to Obama's desk.and in order to meet Obama's most recent goal, this has to be done in about 6 weeks before the end of the year deadline. Be sure to let your Senators know how you feel about this operation.
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.