Skip to comments.Stupak Abortion Language to Be Substituted for Senate Language in Deal to Secure Health Care Votes
Posted on 03/19/2010 7:45:03 PM PDT by LdSentinal
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made a deal with Rep. Bart Stupak in order to secure his vote and that of other anti-choice Democrats for the health care bill, which is scheduled to be voted on this Sunday. According to a member of Congress who was briefed on the matter, Pelosi has agreed to let Stupak have a vote on his amendment either before or after the House votes to pass the Senate bill. It instructs the Senate to substitute the language in his amendment for the Senate language on abortion.
FDL has obtained a copy of the concurrent resolution (PDF), which includes cosponsors Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Joseph Cao, Kathy Dahlkemper, Steve Driehaus, Marcy Kaptur, Dan Lipinski, Alan Mollohan, and Nick Rahall. A second source confirms that with the exception of Cao, these are the members of Congress who are still on the fence. Cao is still considered a firm no vote.
The deal calls for Stupak to have a vote on his amendment either before or after the House votes to confirm the Senate bill on Sunday. Stupak is confident that he has the votes to pass the measure and is happy to have the vote after the House passes the Senate bill. He believes that by using a tie bar measure, his amendment would be tied to the health care bill which would require just 51 votes in the Senate.
Pro-choice members of the House, however, are demanding that the vote on the Concurrent Resolution happen before the House confirms the Senate bill. If in fact it passes, they plan to vote against confirming the Senate bill. They want Rep. Diana Degette to release the names of the 41 cosigners to her letter who pledged to vote against any bill that restricts a womans right to choose, and they are angry that the White House has been whipping to push through the Stupak deal.
It is outrageous that a Democratic Speaker, a Democratic Majority Leader and a Democratic President should support rolling back womens reproductive rights, says one member of the group.
Alan Grayson, who voted against the Stupak Amendment when it went before the house last October, now has 80 cosponors for his public option amendment but has not been granted a floor vote. I wonder why we can have a vote to please anti-choice clique, and we cant have a vote on the public option he says.
Text of the Concurrent Resolution below the jump
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MR. STUPAK (for himself, MR. Berry, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Cao, Ms. Dahlkemper, Mr. Driehaus, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Mollohan, and Mr. Rahall) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the committee on ________
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION Correcting the enrollment of H.R. 3590
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring) That in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3590, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the following corrections:
(1) In the section 1303 amended by section 10104(c) of the bill
(A) in the section heading, insert RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES after SPECIAL RULES; AND
(B) strike subsection (a) and all of subsection (b) that precedes paragraph (4) and insert the following:
(a) IN GENERAL Nothing in this Act (or any amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require any health plan to provide coverage of abortion services or allow the Secretary or any other person or entity implementing this Act (or amendment) to require coverage of such services.
(b) LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING
(1) iN GENERAL None of the funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits under section 36N of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, shall be expected 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 the 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 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.
(2) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE COVERAGE OR PLAN _- Subject to paragraph (1), noting in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State orlocal government) from purchasing separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a plan that inclues such abortions, so long as such coverage or plan is not purchased using the non-Federal funds required to receive a Federal payment, including a preminum payment required for the qualified health plan towards whith the credit described in paragraph (1) is applied or a States or localitys contribution of Medicaid matching funds.
(3) OPTION TO OFFER COVERAGE OR PLAN Subject to paragraph (1), noting in this subsection shall restrict any non-Federal health insurance insurer offering a qualified health plan from offering separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a plan that includes such abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a plan that inclue3s such abortions, so long as any such insurer that offers a qualified health plan through any Exchange that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection also offers a qualified health plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except it does not cover such abortions.
(2) In subsection (a) of the section 1334 added by section 10104(q) of the bill, strike paragraph (6) and redesignate paragraph (7) as paragraph (6).
No. If the House votes for this, the Senate bill then becomes law (w/ Obama's signature). It will then be up to the Senate to approve the changes included with the House's 'yes' vote. These are changes that the Senate had already rejected, and with 41 GOP Senators already vowing to vote against, there is literally no chance these changes will be passed. This means that any House member voting 'yes' on Sunday is voting exclusively for the Senate Bill, and that includes the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Connecticut Payoff, the South Florida Exclusion, and best of all, Government-mandated abortion coverage.
Make no mistake. With 216 'yes' votes on Sunday, the Senate Bill becomes law, and the HHS Secretary will be empowered to order every insurance company in America to cover abortions. And with that, YOU will be required to pay premiums to cover the cost of those abortions. It will take 216 votes (6 x 6 x 6).
The Senate Republicans have already done exactly that.
Are you sure Shuler is still a ‘no’?
I think this bill is a based on a different parliamentary proceedure than the Reconciliation bill. I believe it actually instructs the Clerk to change the Senate bill before it is presented to the President. My fear however, is that if the House votes for this and then the senate votes it down that the Senate Bill could then go to the President to be signed without any changes.
In other words as of this minute Pelosi isn't assured of having the votes.
Everyone has a tip,(lol) we out here in the real world just have to keep praying for Divine Intervention. Sure can't depend on a democrat, Stupak or any other.
So, they are counting on Republicans to vote for it? The Republicans had better vote which ever way throws a wrench in the Obamacare works.
That is exactly what will happen. If the House passes this, then the Senate Bill becomes law as soon as Obama signs it. (Of course he promised the American People that he would wait 5 days before doing so.)
You can't work with them, converse with them, legislate with them, make deals with them. They are in reality the unrepentant spawns of Satan and the prime example of the presence of evil on Earth. They have no redeeming virtues and are the "human" equivalent of an unrestricted malignancy.
Plenty of votes does not square with those who are keeping close tallies. Those tallies show the publicly stated no votes are only one or two shy of 216. If that's how it stays, then the yes votes could only be a few more than 216. That's not "plenty". But maybe those who have said they're voting no are lying just to get people to stop calling their offices so that tally could be inaccurate.
Most of the members in Stupak's coalition have not declared either way.
It is a risky maneuver to give Stupak a separate vote, because if enough Republicans vote "present", that vote would fail and what would that gain Stupak and his gang if they turn around and then vote FOR the Senate bill? It would just demonstrate that they don't really have principles, they just want to appear as if they have them.
There is a lot of misinformation and confusion out there. Much of it makes no sense whatever.
Yeah, but FDL has had terrific whip count and analysis that appears reality-based. The intercepted communication of the enemy is the best intelligence.
Stupak said he and Pelosi didn’t have an agreement. Stupak is susposed to make an announcement tororrow.
That's all that Diogenesis can do. Which is why I coined the term Flying Inman for his ilk. They bring up religion where it doesn't belong, and are a threat to hijack.
How could Stupak think that any separate bill or even any changes to the reconciliation bill have anything to do with what will be signed into law. As soon as the reconciliation bill is passed, and the senate bill is “deemed” to have passed, Obama will sign the senate bill into law and have a huge party for the “historic” victory for universal health care.
Problem enough believing a web site I half way trust.
Mercy I have no idea what Stupak can think or even what he will or will not do. They are all lying democrats. Tomorrow when he make his announcement we’ll know if he accepts Pelosi’s offer.
If Stupak had any sense he'd just vote no and help kill this piece of crap.
The owner of the site agreeing with the point of view being promoted by the spam posting seems a poor reason to allow the site to be degraded. Is anything anti-Romney allowed, no matter how lame, disruptive, and unrelated to the topic at hand?
“There is a lot of misinformation and confusion out there. Much of it makes no sense whatever. “
I agree...and add “disinformation” to the towering pile of babble.
Virtually nothing trustworthy or useful.
All of this reminds me of those stories of Malenkov, Beria, and Molotov chasing each other around the Kremlin with pistols the night Stalin died.
“All of this reminds me of those stories of Malenkov, Beria, and Molotov chasing each other around the Kremlin with pistols the night Stalin died.”
I was not aware of this, but you have piqued my curiosity. Will look that up....But, on another thread I said:
none of them are truly taking moral or legal stands
theyre not even taking RATIONAL stands; whats taking place right now almost feels like some psychotic frenzy.
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.