Posted on 11/06/2009 10:46:39 PM PST by truthandlife
Abortion opponents won a huge last-minute concession late Friday night after Democratic leaders agreed to grant them a vote on an amendment that would effectively bar insurers that participate in the exchanges from offering coverage for abortions.
Members of the Rules Committee were expected to approve a vote on the amendment early Saturday morning after hours of negotiations in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Capitol office.
Leaders reluctantly made the decision after working for days to broker a truce that would garner a blessing from the Conference of Catholic Bishops. But the church, according to members and aides, wouldn't accept a compromise crafted by Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth that would have established a body to make sure private insurance companies don't use federal funds to pay for abortions.
The move came as something of a surprise, but aides predicted it would be enough to break a deadlock that has paralyzed leaders for days as they scrambled to build the 218 votes they need for the health care bill, as well as a procedural measure to green light its consideration.
The Rules Committee is expected to give Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak a floor vote on his amendment to prohibit private insurers from using federal funds to pay for abortion or allowing companies that participate in the exchange from offering coverage through those plans. Given the strength of the anti-abortion vote in the House, the amendment should pass when it comes to the floor and will therefore become part of the broader bill.
Liberals fought hard to prevent Stupak from adding this language, and members of the Pro-Choice Caucus were expected to meeting Saturday morning at 9 to review the amendment. In the interim, liberals on the Rules Committee expressed an obvious unease with the move during debate late Friday night.
"I find this amendment very, very uncomfortable," said Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, a liberal Democrat on the Rules Committee.
"If this goes to the Senate and comes back, it's going to be very difficult for the Speaker or anyone to get me to vote for health care," said Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings, another liberal Democrat on the Rules Committee.
Ellsworth worked closely with Pennsyvlania Rep. Mike Doyle and other Democrats who support reproductive rights to craft a compromise that both sides could accept. But a critical bloc of Democrats wouldn't sign on to the plan unless the Conference of Catholic Bishops could endorse if. Therefore, party leaders once again bowed to political pressure from their own rank-and-file to make a concession they didn't want to.
During the Rules Committee hearing, a soon-to-be victorious Stupak quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the 2006 campaigns when the declared, "The voice of American has a right to be heard.
"So, like every American, I wish to be heard on the sanctity of life," Stupak said.
This could kill this whole deal. There is no way that the liberal pro-death Dems that get blood money from Planned Parenthood will accept this.
I think this bill has a very good chance of being sunk.
Why would we want to make this plan more acceptable?
Dem: We’re gonna destroy everything on your property.
Rep: ABSOLUTELY NOT.
Dem: Okay then, we’ll destroy everything except the shed in the backyard.
Rep: Well.. Okay.
Read the whole article. Even though this thing passes in the House it could ultimately fail when it comes back. There is no way that Democrats will accept any kind of pro-life language in this bill.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
“I find this amendment very, very uncomfortable,” said Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, a liberal Democrat on the Rules Committee.
“If this goes to the Senate and comes back, it’s going to be very difficult for the Speaker or anyone to get me to vote for health care,” said Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings, another liberal Democrat on the Rules Committee.
What a liar- the red rat Hastings will vote for socialized medicine no matter what.
You forgot-
Rep: I’ve saved the shed!!
All republicans should vote against this amendment and defeat it. Final bill will then have pro-death provision and can be defeated in total.
The hard core left will act reluctant but since socialized health care is their holy grail they will most certainly accept the “compromise” in order to get it passed. They’ve been after socialized medicine for 60 yrs- they aren’t going to let abortion or any other issue get in their way. The single issue pro-abortion people - if there even is such a thing- have nowhere else to go next election so they can be ignored for now until their party gets its filthy foot into the hospital door. What are they going to do to stop a bill which restricts abortion? Join the Republican party? Not a chance. They will suck it up and Pelosi knows it.
If pelosi thought the amendment had a chance of passage, I don’t think she would have agreed to let it get a floor vote.
It’s not a huge concession if Pelosi is just allowing a floor vote on an amendment that won’t pass.
The liberal democrats want health coverage. They will vote for this bill and find ways to modify it once it's in place.
Anyone who can't see this for the "One bite at a time" charade it is is a fool.
We don’t. Stupak is a Dem. This is a fig leaf so the so-called “Pro Life Caucus” Dems can claim they tried really, really hard to get a guarantee of no public funds for abortion amendment in the Bill. They’re not serious; they know perfectly well that it can’t survive the Conference Committee. It’s a cynical maneuver.
You are absolutely correct. It really doesn’t matter what they say is in the bill. If it passes both house and senate, they will mark up the bill in conference and say whatever they need to say to get it to pass. Once it passes, they will write the actual bill which will have whatever they really want it to have.
Why does Pelosi have all the say in this matter?
It seems kind of stupid and makes the democrats look very weak and stupid.
Duh, I’m going follow Ms Botox. Geez
speaker of the house has incredible power.
definitely the 2nd most powerful position after the president
Agree. These pro-abortions D’rats will vote for ANY health “reform” bill to save their own skin and that of the Great Pretender at the WH.
I pray the Blue Dogs do not fold.
What about paying for this monstrosity?
This entire thing is against the Constitution, regardless if a number of "Blue Dog dims" claiming to be pro-life, so that they can get this Obamination sanctioned by the Catholic Church won't get creamed in their home territory by their Catholic, pro-life constituents!
What about forcing non-Catholics to pay for "health care" for illegal immigrants, the elderly getting "medical advice" by government death panels, or taking away every America's right to make our own decisions, simply because the "liberal government" wants to control our entire lives and fortunes (and deaths) all to "cover the uninsured" (which it won't at all?)
How about the Evangelical Christians who are against government taxes to pay for the abortions, death panels, embryonic stem cells destruction, all in the cause of "health?"
What about Evangelical Christians who don't wish to pay for the "health care" for illegal immigrants?
If Bart Stupak cares so much about geting the pro-life Catholic Bishops to sign on to an unconstitutional, massive destruction of the entire American taxpayer's rights and his "Catholic pro-life constituents, what does he worry about when he belongs to the party that votes to re-elect Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, and every other pro-abortion Catholic dimocRAT in Congress - one presumes that THEY get re-elected with Catholic voters time and time again.
What is the "urgency" over getting this enacted into law NOW, when "health care" won't take affect until 2013 (after Obama is re-elected?)
It's the taxes that only tax payers will be forced to pay (not the 47% that don't pay taxes) nor the illegal aliens now.
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.