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).
And with good reason, it is spelled out very clearly in the US Constitution!
Its an amendment that says to the senate, you have to do this or... what ever. Its not what they will be voting on on Sunday assuming they vote. They will vote on that amendment after that. That being said. I hold no hope for this situation at all. Despair is all I know.
This is a Tragedy for freedom. There it goes folks... the last beacon of hope on earth dies.....
Firedog lake is a liberal site, but they have been vehemently anti this bill -- for liberal reasons, but they aren't messing around -- they are whipping votes AGAINST the bill, and their whip count articles are as good as anybody else's, and maybe better -- at least they are easier to understand, and they have a good chart to keep track with.
>> You are wrong.
Yes, the ‘Reproductive Rights’ argument is not directly related to public funding. I’m not suggesting it’s connected.
I’m arguing against the ‘Reproductive Rights’ reasoning that says killing an unborn human is an intrinsic right to motherhood.
I’m saying the right to reproduce is not in question at all.
Using the link at top of this post I got this. I don’t understand what you are saying.
Good lord Nancy. This enrollment correction is usually for technical changes, not changing the bill’s intent. They are getting desparate, the Dems.
The Stupak compromise will be included in the "Deemed passed" provision, which of course includes the Senate bill. It will then be left up to the mercy of the Senate, which will vote it down. Once the Senate bill passes, the Senate will have gotten everything they want. There will be no reason for them to accept House provisions that they already rejected. And on top of that, Senate Republicans have already put the House on notice that all 41 of them will be voting against the new bill coming from the House. If Stupak accepts this, he is a both a fool and a sell-out to the abortion industry.
And forget about the 'no federal funding' claim. The real enemy here is the Mikulski Amendment.
NOOOO! AW S*&T!!! I knew he would cave in.
Refer to post 35 for an answer to that, bout sums up what these communists are up to.
Not surprised one bit. Looks like we’re going to have to stop this monstrosity in the courts.
Does anyone believe this?
But his wife wants to watch TV again.
This is true. He goes from a appearing to be a shrewd and capable legislator to stooge. I'm not sure I believe this yet. I think he has a presser tomorrow. Then we will know.
Stupak folds tomorrow morning if he says they can take vote on this “correction” after passage of Recon vote. Basically he will be leaving it at mercy of recon process to stay in bill.
My thought is, the bill once passed is passed, according to the Constitution, and the Concurrent Resolution is just a procedure that stays the enrollment (transmission) of the bill to the President. If the Concurrent Resolution fails, you still have a bill that was, in reality, passed, even if the Congressional Rules say it can’t be enrolled. Now what is to stop Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden from signing the bill and sending it to the President anyway? Only Congressional rules. This is pretty dangerous territory.
The Supreme Court can be packed by a President, Vice President and 50 Senators.
I can think of hundreds of things of things related to Obamacare going back for years and years. The travesties in the 2008 Senate elections in Alaska and Minnesota come to mind. That doesn't mean FR would be better or more interesting if I were to pick a thread about Stupak and abortion as a place to demonstrated unhinged, obsessive behavior related to any of them for about 20 column inches.
Would a a seemingly endless montage of links to articles about Ted Stevens' railroading fit in this thread and make for interesting reading for others, or would that make me look like I have a hard time staying on topic? Really? Really?
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.