Stupak: 12 previous health bill supporters could flip over abortion

THE HILL ^ | 03/03/10 05:15 PM ET | By Michael O'Brien

[onyx]

The Senate's healthcare bill would lose 12 Democratic votes in the House, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Wednesday.

Stupak, the sponsor of an amendment to the House healthcare bill which barred federal subsidies for health plans covering abortion, said that 12 lawmakers who had previously supported healthcare reform legislation in the House.

"It's accurate to say there are at least 12 of us who voted for healthcare that have indicated to the speaker and others that unless you change this language, we will vote against it," Stupak said during an appearance on MSNBC.

[chris_bdba]

Good! This bill funds abortion and if they think it will be fixed they are easily duped.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"What will happen is Peloski will promise the blue dogs that the abortion parts of the Senate bill will be overturned in the reconciliation bill, telling them to go ahead and vote for the Senate bill."

My understanding from reading other things is that the way the bill is worded, the abortion amendment is not one of the portions of the bill that can go to reconcilliation. I could be wrong on this, but I know I have either heard Congressmen talk about it while being interviewed or read it somewhere. The things they are going to iron out in reconcilliation are things like the taxing and funding parts of the bill.

That's probably why later in the article Stupak talks about companion legislation being passed with them voting on that. They could get that out of the house but there are no guarantees that could pass the Senate. In fact there are probably enough liberals and democrats in the Sentate that they could fillibuster that bill while the HC bill goes through. Wouldn't that be a hoot in a sick sort of way. I'm sure Stupak and his people realize this also. That's why this healthcare bill is probably dead. There's no way they can guarantee that abortion won't be funded by this bill. It's not going to be part of the reconcilliation.

[Liberty1970]

McCoy: It’s dead Jim.

Maybe. But let's keep beating it, just to be sure.

[CharlesWayneCT]

And the nice thing is that Pelosi already said they can’t fix abortion with reconciliation.

On the other hand, some of the no votes before were liberals who refused to vote against abortion coverage, so they could switch to yes votes.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Actually, in the end, the house vote makes NO DIFFERENCE. It didn’t help the Senate pass their bill, which was written in the Senate and attached to an entirely different bill (the reason for that is so the senate could later take up the house bill if they wanted).

So there’s no point in “blaming” anybody for helping the house pass it’s bill. If the house had never passed a bill, we’d still be sitting here with the Senate bill and reconciliation.

And at least we have votes on record for the house bill, which helps us, not hurts us.

And lastly, this gives cover to democrats who want to vote against the final bill, because they can say they voted for the house version.

[CharlesWayneCT]

She already said that abortion can’t be changed in reconciliation, because it’s not “funding”, which of course is stupid because abortion is all about funding abortions, but that’s what she said.

[onyx]

Right. I doubt the pro-life Stupek democrats will fall for that.

[CharlesWayneCT]

There is no constitutionally viable way to change the language of the EXISTING Senate bill.

Actually, in a democratic house, not run as a dictatorship, they could easily amend the senate bill. Of course, then the Senate would have to vote on it again, which would take 60 votes.

But it's not a constitutional problem.

[onyx]

Right, on both counts, and now GOP Congressman Deal is resigning. UGH.

[FlipWilson]

Quote: “I’ll say it again, THIS BILL IS DEAD. IT’S TOXIC.”

It is as good as passed, bank on it. There is NO SUCH THING as a moderate democrat, none exist. They are all leftists and it is only question of degree. A tiger is a tiger, or in this case a lemming is a lemming. The democrats are willing to go over the cliff no matter how hard the landing. It is only a question of price.

I am amazed that more people do not see this given how, in the face of major political backlash, the democrats in congress continue to vote for horrible bills over and over again.

[dennisw]

Due to the recent Republican wins Nancy Pelosi and 0bama can’t dictate to these Representatives the way they did four months ago when she rammed the bill through the House. So there is hope.....

[onyx]

True. Her democrats are worried and Obama’s approval numbers continue to fall.

[The Wizard]

If they change one word the senate has to re vote....

[ScoopAmma]

I may be stupid BUT. What if the House passes the Senate bill regardless of what they think may be passed later. Don’t they have to first of all accept it as presented? That bill is then signed by The pResident. Doesn’t it at that point become law? What assures anyone that there ever is another vote?

[Mariner]

"Actually, in a democratic house, not run as a dictatorship, they could easily amend the senate bill. Of course, then the Senate would have to vote on it again, which would take 60 votes."

And, that is my point. I'm talking about the EXISTING Senate bill...upon the assumption that any bill palatable to the House could never pass the Senate...and vice versa.

It's been my contention for a year.

[Eyes Unclouded]

What assures anyone that there ever is another vote?

Just the promises of DC Democratic leadership. Hence the hesitation on the vote.

[Mariner]

"It is as good as passed, bank on it. "

If so, why is neither bill now law?

The fact of the matter is, if they had the votes it would be on the WH desk tomorrow. They just don't have the votes.

The spectrum of political thought and varying degree of constituencies within the dim caucus...and between the House and Senate...is so broad they cannot pass something palatable to both without GOP support.

[dennisw]

I may be stupid BUT. What if the House passes the Senate bill regardless of what they think may be passed later. Don’t they have to first of all accept it as presented? That bill is then signed by The pResident. Doesn’t it at that point become law? What assures anyone that there ever is another vote?

House members differ philosophically with the Senate and the Senate bill just can't be rammed through the House. This has been an option for weeks but looks undoable

This is what the NY Times said about this matter:

• The most straightforward way to enact reform would be for the House — which only needs a majority — to approve the bill passed by the Senate and send it straight to the president for his signature. Unfortunately, House Democrats appear unwilling to do that.
• Liberal members of the caucus think the Senate bill should spend more money to cover more people and provide more generous subsidies. Fiscal hawks are nervous about the projected costs of either bill. And legislators who strongly oppose abortion think the restrictions on coverage for abortion in the Senate’s bill are too weak.

[ScoopAmma]

Which is the reason why I asked the question.

[ballplayer]

Does anyone have an Idea how many House Members were allowed to Vote No last Time because they were in Conservative districts and Pelosi once she knew she had enough votes told them to go ahead and vote no but now that she needs them will tell them they now have to vote yes