Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stupak Abortion Language to Be Substituted for Senate Language in Deal to Secure Health Care Votes
FiredogLake ^ | 3/19/10 | Jane Hamsher

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).


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: 111th; abortion; bhoabortion; bhohealthcare; caves; deathpanels; michigan; obamacare; romney; romneycare; satanshelper; socializedmedicine; stupak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161 next last
To: MsLady

Lipinski (D-IL) just did a phone interview on the Chicago local news, said he was a no vote.

BTW, Fox local news polled tonight whether this bill should pass, 78% in Chicago area said “NO”!


81 posted on 03/19/2010 8:24:16 PM PDT by Fu-fu2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Minn

I think Stupak is a flaming radical liberal and can’t be trusted. The game playing with American lives at stake is unconscienable.


82 posted on 03/19/2010 8:24:44 PM PDT by varina davis (Life is not a dress rehearsal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Fu-fu2

Hmmmm....we may not need Stupak and his bunch after all.


83 posted on 03/19/2010 8:25:57 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Minn; Admin Moderator
Are you sure that hijacking the threat with a very long, unrelated, spam style rant is the right thing to do?

He hijacks every thread on FR I have no idea why the mods allow it to continue when this is probably the most important issue to ever effect us in our lives.

But Diogenesis's obsession with Romney seems to be more important than the communist takeover of America.

84 posted on 03/19/2010 8:26:06 PM PDT by Dengar01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: outofstyle
Yes, the female baby killers are not happy.

I will continue praying for Divine Intervention!

Sleep well, we haven't lost yet.

85 posted on 03/19/2010 8:27:54 PM PDT by BARLF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Fu-fu2

NRO has Sabato tweeting that its over, the bill is going to pass the House.


86 posted on 03/19/2010 8:28:35 PM PDT by dinoparty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: what's up

No, we do. Lipinski is part of the group, said he was voting no because of the abortion language in the bill.


87 posted on 03/19/2010 8:29:05 PM PDT by Fu-fu2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: SteveAustin

Its in a concurrent resolution which they seem to think allows them to amend without 60 votes. However, it appears to be changing the actual Senate bill so I think this would change it before it could be signed by the President. This would require it to go back to the Senate and have 51 senators agree (which is doubtfull if the Republicans and Pro Choice Democrat Senators vote no). However, I really haven’t studied the amendment enough to be sure that I am right.


88 posted on 03/19/2010 8:29:28 PM PDT by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: what's up

check my link at post #75


89 posted on 03/19/2010 8:31:56 PM PDT by BARLF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: BARLF

How does Stupak group go to CHURCH Sunday morning and in afternoon vote for 30% abortion increase???? NO WAY!!!!!!


90 posted on 03/19/2010 8:33:45 PM PDT by biggredd1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

I could be wrong but I believe that by voting for Stupak’s Concurrent Resolution that the house would be voting to Change the Senate Bill during the enrollment process. IE, after its been voted for but before its sent to the senate. So, if the House votes for this and the Senate does not would the house then have to unvote this change before the Senate bill could go to the President?


91 posted on 03/19/2010 8:37:05 PM PDT by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: biggredd1
In my link at #75 doesn't sound like he has a deal with Pelosi.
92 posted on 03/19/2010 8:37:13 PM PDT by BARLF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: dschapin; All
Enrollment of Legislation: Relevant Congressional Procedures, a pamphlet from CRS:

http://congressnow.gallerywatch.com/docs/Enrollment_CRS.pdf

93 posted on 03/19/2010 8:37:18 PM PDT by cmj328 (Filibuster FOCA--a/k/a ObamaCare--or lose reelection)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: biggredd1
Look same news came out that Shuler was an Undecided, but he was always a No...The news is meant to drive opinion and to make people feel defeated..
94 posted on 03/19/2010 8:37:52 PM PDT by akapossumdawg (There's three types of people, those that can count and those that cannot...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: cmj328

You could be right - thanks for that insight.


95 posted on 03/19/2010 8:38:24 PM PDT by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Fu-fu2
Then I wonder why he's announcing tonight when the Stupak deal is still up in the air.

I figure that even if Stupak's crowd defects, we still have undecideds we could pick up. We only need one or two.

96 posted on 03/19/2010 8:39:44 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: akapossumdawg

I hope your right and this deal is phony propaganda. Yet....I can’t shake this feeling that he did indeed cave to Pelousy.


97 posted on 03/19/2010 8:39:45 PM PDT by Commander X (TOTUS...destroying the USA one lie at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Springman; sergeantdave; cyclotic; netmilsmom; RatsDawg; PGalt; FreedomHammer; queenkathy; ...
If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.

Holy cow, that seemed like a lot of pings!

98 posted on 03/19/2010 8:39:56 PM PDT by grellis (I am Jill's overwhelming sense of disgust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: biggredd1
"We had a good discussion with the speaker on the floor," said Stupak. "But there was no agreement and there's no agreement until we see it in writing and we get a chance to massage it."
99 posted on 03/19/2010 8:42:07 PM PDT by BARLF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: BARLF
Seems to me that Stupak might be talking out of both sides of his mouth right now.

I don't trust him. I'm glad that he's standing strong for some kind of change...but I don't trust him.

100 posted on 03/19/2010 8:43:48 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson