Will the health-care bill become law?

E-mail | 11-09-09 | Randall Terry

[mlizzy]

Will the health-care bill become law?
Here is how the process works...

We can be very glad that the Stupak Amendment passed, which would effectively ban the use of our money at any level in this health care bill from being used to pay for the murder of children, unless those children had the grave misfortune of being conceived by rape or incest. Then, they can be murdered with our money. That being stated, this battle is far from over. I make no bones about it: I want to kill this bill. I hate Socialism. However, I also understand that ethically there is a huge difference between someone robbing me in order to pay for his daughter to have her appendix removed and someone robbing me to pay for the murder of his daughter. One theft involves pursuing life, the other involves pursuing murder.

Now, for anyone who is unfamiliar with the process of how bills become laws, let me explain to you some of what lies ahead. The next focal point in this battle will be the United States Senate. Republicans have already indicated they intend to filibuster this bill. But, in order to sustain a filibuster, they need 41 votes, and they only have 40 members in the Senate. So, will a Democrat defect from evil, and vote for freedom and life? Will an independent like Lieberman filibuster with the Republicans? We will have to see.

Anyway, before any bill becomes law a bill must pass in the Senate. Then, because the Senate bill and the House bill have different language, they have to take the bill to what is called a "conference committee." The C-SPAN Congressional glossary defines conference committee thus: "A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE is a temporary panel of House and Senate negotiators. A conference committee is created to resolve differences between versions of similar House and Senate bills."

The conference committee -- made up of Senators and members of the House of Representatives -- will take the words of both bills and hammer them out so that the words in the bill are exactly identical. The conference committee is dangerous water for the Stupak amendment. It could be thrown out in committee. There are many amendments that pass in the House or the Senate which get thrown overboard in conference committee.

After the bill is hammered out in committee, it must go back to both chambers -- the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate -- to be voted on again in its entirety. There have been bills that passed both houses, but when the bill was returned from conference committee it was defeated in one of the chambers because the changes made in committee were unacceptable to the majority of that chamber.

So, if the Stupak amendment gets thrown out in committee, the pro-life House Members who voted for it could kill the bill the next time it comes up for a vote. If the bill passes in both houses (Senate and House) after the conference committee changes, it goes to the President of the United States, who has 10 days to sign it into becoming law. Obviously, President Obama will sign whatever health care bill reaches him.

So, to recap: there are at least three votes left on this bill before any law could reach President Obama's desk for his signature. first, a vote in the Senate. If 41 senators agree to filibuster, it could be defeated there. The Democrats could avoid the process of filibuster by putting the health care bill in the form of a "reconciliation" bill. You may have heard this bantered about as the "Nuclear Option." The rules of filibuster do not apply to a "reconciliation" bill, so the Dems would only need a simple majority of 51 votes.

If the bill passes the Senate, it must go to a conference committee. Once hammered out there, it goes back to both houses for another vote. So...we must now turn our full attention to the Senate.

I will be writing soon, to give you some ideas as to what you can do in your area, or here in DC.

If you want to send a personal letter by fax (from you) to every US Senator, you can do so for only 17 1/2 cents each - $17.50 - for all 100 Senators. Go here to write to all Senators.

And by the way - the video of the sit-in our friends did at Nancy Pelosi's office already has about 34,000 views. If you have not seen it, I urge you to go here and watch the two videos on the sit-in. I promise you will be inspired.

We have a lot of planning and fighting to do. Please keep us in your prayers.

--Randall Terry

[mlizzy]

Protest on Pelosi: Thursday, November 5 (video currently has over 34,000 views)
Protest on Pelosi: Thursday, November 5 (video currently has over 2,500 views) -- this is a similar video as to above, but covers the outside protesters as well

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

He missed a critical point. To get a bill out of the senate, *any* bill, will take that 2/3rds majority. However, once it goes to conference committee, the Democrats *will* insert abortion into the bill again.

They will.

But when the bill goes back to the House and Senate, they don’t *need* any more 2/3rds majority. Just a *simple* majority in both houses, and the bill passes. The Democrats *easily* have that.

No further amendments. No debate. With abortion and death panels and every thing Obama wants and nothing he doesn’t want.

This means if *any* bill even leaves the senate at all, we have lost. America has lost. Babies will die, paid for with tax dollars.

So *only* this upcoming senate vote matters. It is the *last* chance to stop this monstrosity. Anything else is window dressing.

The *only* thing standing between America and socialism is a tiny handful of senators. Three, perhaps four, men and women hold the fate of America in their hands.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Let's not forget to thank those 3000 "third party" voters in MN who gave the election to Franken.

If they had voted for Coleman, we wouldn't be in this fix.

Third party voters are more traitor than patriot.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I have a feeling that if you attempted to visit any of those third party voters, you would instead get to survey a lot of vacant lots.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

You very well may be correct. I’m sure fraud played a huge role in the defeat of Coleman but we don’t have to help the RATs.

[mlizzy]

"P.S. Don't let anyone tell you not to celebrate this victory in the House [Stupak-Pitts Amendment] just because the bill is far from perfect and more battles lie ahead. They do -- and that's exactly why we must draw strength and encouragement from these kinds of pro-life victories" --Eric Scheidler, Pro-Life Action League.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The vast majority of third parties are indeed a waste of time. But those that are well managed, like the New York Conservative Party, almost saved the day.

The difference is that good third parties are grassroots and start at the local level. The turkeys are the ones that start by running a presidential candidate, and turn into spoilers, at best.

At the national level, campaigns have a “tactical map” that is very instructive about how things work. If you pick any congressional district, the first thing you look for is if it is red, blue or purple. Then you look at who they choose to represent themselves. Do they go with their dominant party, or against it? Do they support liberals or conservatives or independents? Do they keep a congressman for life or do they swap them out every two years?

It has been calculated out that a third party, just electing congressmen, not senators, could be a major powerhouse in Washington with just a dozen seats, assuming the two big parties are about tied. This is because they can accumulate enormous numbers of political IOUs from both sides, which they can use to advance their agenda.

Even the US senate is subject to this, now for the first time in a long time having two senators who are essentially independent. And a whole handful willing to turn on their own party. This maximizes their power as individuals.

But the trouble is that third parties are either presidential parties or are not motivated enough to get a dozen congressmen elected. If they were, the entire dynamic of Washington could change.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Ain’t gonna happen. Now if you’re talking left wing third parties, I’m all for it.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Never confuse a “moral victory” with a real victory. All I see this amendment doing is giving cover to those in the next election who want to say “I voted for it before I voted against it.”

Right now, at least two leading Democrat congressmen have come out and said that this amendment will be stripped out in the conference committee, hand picked by Pelosi and Reid.

So if the senate approves any bill at all, it is over. After the bill is rewritten to be exactly what Obama wants, and nothing he does not want, a simple majority up or down vote in both houses and it is off to him to sign.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Already did happen. It was the Progressive Party, aka the Bull Moose Party. They got their dozen congressmen, but they self destructed as a party by running Roosevelt in a presidential campaign. He spoiled the race, and it caused the party to fracture.

Had they limited themselves to just congress, they might still be around today.

[mlizzy]

Never confuse a “moral victory” with a real victory. All I see this amendment doing is giving cover to those in the next election who want to say “I voted for it before I voted against it.”

I've had the good fortune to work alongside Eric Scheidler and it is his positive energy that keeps everyone so upbeat day in and day out working for the unborn. I enjoy his e-mails; there has never been a negative one yet (it's true!). So I was just passing along some positive vibes to you.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Outstanding. But always remember to keep your eyes on the prize.