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 woman’s 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 women’s 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 can’t 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 State’s or locality’s 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).
What a big fat goat cluster copulation this has become.
Pray the Lord send a mighty whirlwind of dissension and confusion into the enemies camp.
I need to read up on this. However, I believe that this actually modifies the Senate Bill, which means that at least 51 Senators would have to agree and if they did not that the House would have to repass the Senate bill. Not sure though.
Don’t be fooled by this. The plan as outlined is flatly impossible. And even if it were possible, they’d lose more votes than they’d gain by prohibiting abortion funding.
Are you sure that hijacking the threat with a very long, unrelated, spam style rant is the right thing to do?
Whom I trust about as far as I can throw a Boesendorfer grand piano. He would find some way to distinguish something or other.
Cordially,
If the vote on Stupak’s Amendment comes first we might be smarter to vote for it and force the pro-choice block to defect. Not sure on that though.
After all everybody here or most of the FReepers were "praying" for this a##hole. I was calling him the f'ing parasite hypocrite that he is.
Pro-life democrat is like a Nazi rabbi.
Well there we are. The dems have stolen our republic. Now what?
What are the legal and protests that we as peace loving patriots can do? How are our governors going to protest and structure the fact that we are now at a point were income will be given to parasites and the productive members of this country are screwed.
We are all DETROIT. Doncha just love the hope and f'ing change???? brothas....
One must go to the link url provided with thread to see the article: http://firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/stupak-abortion-language-to-be-substituted-for-senate-language-in-deal-to-secure-health-care-votes/
I thought it was just a glitch, but....is something amiss?
I think Stupak had already lost 2 or 3 of his twelve earlier.
Oh c*rp and I just emailed him thanking him for standing up us against this health care plan and for life. I had a gut feeling but, was hopeful this wouldn’t happen :(
Not sure how this works. However, since this amendment purports to actually change the Senate Bill. I believe that if it passes then the Senate Bill has to go back to the Senate before it can go to the president. That would mean that Nancy Pelosi would be giving up on getting the president something to sign on Sunday.
Do you really think RomneyCARE’s failure is not
related to ObamaCARE?
Really? Really?
“And while he was sitting on the judgement seat, his (Pilate) wife sent to him, saying, “have nothing to do with that righteous Man; for last night I suffered greatl in a dream because of Him.”Matthew 27:19
Pilate caved in due to pressure that the HIGH Priests put on and he made the WRONG CHOICE!
Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama are putting ILLEGAL PRESSURE upon REPs! They ALL need to be called PILATE!
Doesn’t the Senate bill have a provision in it that a supermajority is needed to amend it? I would think this would certainly apply after a successful effort to pass it into law, but wouldn’t that also apply to attempts to amend it by means of bundling it with another bill that purports to edit its language?
One should be careful what one asks for; one may get it.
Odd, it is there now... (post time 7:30pm)
That Language only applies to one small section of the Senate Bill and probably doesn’t really have any authority. It certainly has no authority untill signed into law.
And don't bluff, tell him we're not going to improve the bill. Even if it means passing it with the Senate language.
Let Stupak and Pelosi try to convince their coalition to hold together.
Yeah, this could be ok if Stupak isn’t stupid and he attaches this thing directly to the Senate Bill. Doing so would prevent Obama from signing it into law Sunday night.
And this could tick off the pro abortion Dems so badly they don’t have a vote.
Frankly, at this hour, I would take a 217-214 Dem win Sunday IF Stupak’s abortion language was tied into the Bill. Wouldn’t that then require a 60 vote majority in the Senate? So now we’re back at gridlock and this thing will be defeated ultimately. Do I have this right?
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.