Stupak Abortion Language to Be Substituted for Senate Language in Deal to Secure Health Care Votes

FiredogLake ^ | 3/19/10 | Jane Hamsher

[Fu-fu2]

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”!

[varina davis]

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

[what's up]

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

[Dengar01]

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.

[BARLF]

Yes, the female baby killers are not happy.

I will continue praying for Divine Intervention!

Sleep well, we haven't lost yet.

[dinoparty]

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

[Fu-fu2]

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

[dschapin]

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.

[BARLF]

check my link at post #75

[biggredd1]

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

[dschapin]

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?

[BARLF]

In my link at #75 doesn't sound like he has a deal with Pelosi.

[cmj328]

Enrollment of Legislation: Relevant Congressional Procedures, a pamphlet from CRS:

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

[akapossumdawg]

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..

[dschapin]

You could be right - thanks for that insight.

[what's up]

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.

[Commander X]

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

[grellis]

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!

[BARLF]

"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."

[what's up]

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.