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).
A key question is: “Do you trust Nancy Pelosi?”
The only rational answer is: “No!”
Did you have to post something so long, making it unnecessarily problematic to read other posts?
Am I missing something among all this jousting and jockeying by our elected representatives....
I was under the impression that any bill that raises revenue or taxes was required by the Constitution to originate in the House of Representatives.... This is a senate bill that has us all up in arms with its machinations and decoys. It is unconstitutional for this bill by its very origin to become law.
Please clarify for me if I am wrong, but this issue seems to have been glossed over...
This is going into the concurrent resolution - which means they are going to try the "Slaughter Rule" ...
Well, RomneyBOT. Religion was NOT mentioned.
RomneyCARE was and its financial mess on a thread
Very relevant. Except to RomneyBOTs.
And where is Obama's secret lover, Mitt Romney,
at this critical moment? That is relevant, too.
Yeah, plutarch...calling FReepers "terrorists" is real cool.
" "Henceforth, you and your co-FR-theologians shall be known as the FR Flying Inmans, because in a secular setting you make a big fuss out of religion, and are a threat to hijack. Plutarch #109 5/30"
Thanks. Your encouragement has led to the "Flying Inmans" membership to number more than fifty FReepers and still growing.
Meant to ping you to 149.
Talk about unintended consequences..
You’ll go down in Freeper infamy for coining that term. It helped solidify a few of us who had been victims of religious deceit, into a cohesive group that has been very effective in showing the discrepancies between what some faiths proclaim and what they actually believe and do. So therefore we have helped disseminate truth into discussions of religion - and that can’t be a bad thing by FRâs own standards.
What the FRâs? That should say FreeRepubic’s own standards.
I love it so...
Talk about erudite!
Ahhhg!...you got me on that one.
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.