[UAConservative]

Then what does the pro-choice caucus do - hopefully vote no?

No! Boehner and Cantor get the Republicans (minus the RINO Anh "Cash" Cao) to vote "present". Since "present" votes count just as much as "Aye" or "No" votes, the Ayes can't get a majority, and the Stupak language goes down in flames.

The only question remaining is whether Stupak and his cohorts stay focused on voting No, or will they change their votes to Yes.

Scenario two involves the Republicans helping out Stupak on this issue and attempting to force the hand of the pro-choice caucus, but I find this one too risky.

[cmj328]

Assuming this is a "clean" amendment which enables nothing legally, the GOP will support the Stupak Amendment in both houses and it will come closer in the Senate than it did the last time but will probably fail anyway and then we're back to where we are today.

[Ravi]

If Stupak sees republicans saying “present” or “no” when they would ordinarily be saying yes essentially killing his amendment, then does he retaliate against us by voting for the bill and against his convictions. I worry about that a lot.

Or if we support him, then that does force the hand of the pro-choice caucus - they are really p’oed at this. But would they cave? I don’t know.

Lots of drama - don’t know the ending.

[chilltherats]

Yeah, especially since it didn’t work last time. The baby-killers bit the bullet and voted “yes” on the bill after the Stupak amendment passed, thanks to the pubs.