Watch it live!
C-Span is broadcasting the House debate on health care. A civic’s lesson, for sure, but a sports announcer would help.
And this in the Times (11/7/09): “On Friday night, as the clocked inched toward midnight, lawmakers in the House Rules Committee hearing room were arguing loudly over various provisions of the big health care legislation. But the real fight was going on in the office of the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, who tried mightily – and ultimately failed – to bridge a bitter intra-party disagreement over the issue of health insurance coverage for abortions.
“With just hours to go before the start on Saturday morning of historic floor debate over the health care bill, leading Democratic members of the Pro-Choice Caucus emerged from Ms. Pelosi’s office unable to contain their fury. Ms. Pelosi, unwilling to delay a vote on the larger bill, had decided that Democrats who oppose abortion simply had too many votes on their side; for the moment, at least, the liberals who favor abortion rights had lost.
“In the end, Ms. Pelosi decided that abortion opponents would be allowed to offer an amendment
to the health care bill that would impose tight restricts on abortions that could be offered through a new government-run insurance plan and through private insurance that is bought using government subsidies that the legislation would provide to moderate-Americans to help them afford health coverage.
“With dozens of Democrats and most of the 177 Republicans expected to vote in favor of the amendment to restrict coverage for abortions, Democratic leadership aides said it was likely to be approved.”
We’ll see how this goes! http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/07/abortion-fight-erupts-in-health-care-debate/?hp
on November 7th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Mark Silk raises a scenario that I wondered about–namely, why would GOP members vote for the Stupak amendment when that could well ensure passage of the larger bill?
http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2009/11/stupak_gets_his_vote.html
The crafty move would be to vote against the amendment and sink the whole ship. Would there be political fallout? The pro-life pros would forgive them, I suspect. And if you are against health care reform, that would also accomplish the greater good.
on November 7th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
From CBN’s David Brody:
A Pro-Life aide is circulating the following as to what the amendment will do:
“The amendment maintains the current policy of preventing federal funding for abortion and for benefits packages that include abortion. However, it clarifies that individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, can with their own funds purchase separate supplemental coverage for elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans that do not receive government subsidies may still offer elective abortions. ”
Expect a vote at any point today (Saturday) The amendment is expected to narrowly pass since more than 40 House Pro-Life Democrats will combine with virtually all Republicans to reach that magical 218 number for the amendment to pass. If it passes, it’s going to drive liberals absolutely crazy. They will have a decision to make at that point. Either vote NO on the overall healthcare reform bill because the bill will now NOT allo federal funds to pay for abortions OR swallow hard and vote YES on healthcare reform anyhow.
A top Republican source on the Hill tells The Brody File the following:
“The Stupak amendment is expected to garner significant Republican support because it is strictest possible abortion language. The vote on Mr. Stupak’s amendment looks like it will be very close, and if it passes then the liberal Democrats will just have to swallow it if they want to pass the overall bill.”
http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2009/11/07/update-on-pro-life-healthcare-amendment-in-house.aspx
on November 7th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
If it passes, it’s going to drive liberals absolutely crazy. They will have a decision to make at that point. Either vote NO on the overall healthcare reform bill because the bill will now NOT allo federal funds to pay for abortions OR swallow hard and vote YES on healthcare reform anyhow.
I am not a member of congress, but I consider myself very liberal, and it seems to me that if the Stupak amendment passes, whether or not to vote for the Democratic bill is a no-brainer. It is much more important to bring insurance coverage to an additional 37 million people than it is to dig in ones heels and vote no over abortion. I certainly hope that the definition of “liberal” is not “someone who is so pro-abortion that they would prefer to see 37 million people get no insurance coverage than to see them get insurance coverage without abortion.”
I saw the Republicans’ press conference this morning, and to my ears it was a pack of lies.
on November 7th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
It is much more important to bring insurance coverage to an additional 37 million people than it is to dig in ones heels and vote no over abortion.
And that seems to define the difference between liberals and conservatives :(
on November 7th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
And that seems to define the difference between liberals and conservatives :(
Actually, what defines the difference between liberals and conservatives on health care reform — or this particular bill — is that liberals are in favor of it and conservatives are against it.
Don’t speak too soon about conservatives and liberals in the Democratic party. If the Stupak amenedment passes, I imagine that liberal Democrats, by and large, will not vote against the bill.
By the way, I would say the same thing applies whether the Stupak amendment passes or fails. It is much more important to bring insurance coverage to an additional 37 million people that it is to let the single issue of abortion determine your vote.
It seems to me that what Pelosi is doing is to get the bill passed, and if it takes the Stupak amendment to pass it, then so be it. She herself is strongly pro-choice and considered extremely liberal, but it does not seem to me that she is willing to see the bill fail on account of abortion.
on November 7th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
It is much more important to bring insurance coverage to an additional 37 million people that it is to let the single issue of abortion determine your vote.
Yes, I agree. What I meant, I guess, was that the conservatives seem more willing to hold 37 million people’s health care hostage in order to get what they want. I emailed my rep and said to vote for the bill though I’m not happy with all of it.
on November 7th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
I am watchhing C-SPAN, and I have never heard so many Republicans so concerned about senior citizens and Medicare.
on November 7th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
David: here’s a poison pill strategy. The Republicans abstain on the Stupak Amendment and Nancy Pelosi loses her pro-life Democrats (and her majority) on the health reform bill. Likely?
on November 7th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Margaret,
When Beohner was asked about that at the Republican news conference this morning, he didn’t exactly say it wouldn’t happen, but he did say the Republican leadership was supporting the Stupak amendment. I think it would be very risky for pro-life Republicans to vote against a pro-life amendment to attempt to kill the bill. Would pro-life Democrats really vote against the whole bill if the Republicans in effect defeated the Stupak amendment?
on November 7th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
During the debate, Boehner has asked the Democratic chairman of the the three relevant committees if they would defend the Stupak amendment in the Senate-House Conference bill; all declined to do so…on the grounds that there are no guarantees when it goes into that mosh pit. Perhaps so, but it provides Boehner and/or other pro-life Republicans the opportunity not to vote against, but abstain. I would like the Stupak amendment to pass and after that the Health Care Reform bill. But tonight after the debate, a call for a voice vote went for those opposed to Stupak’s amendment. There will be a recorded vote, I don’t know when. Why? Because there weren’t enough members in the House; enough Republicans? Not sure what’s up here. Probably normal procedure.
on November 7th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
When debating the amendment, both sides pro & con laid claim to maintaining the status quo with the Hyde Amendment. So which version does that? Or do neither?
on November 7th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
This is to respond in clarification: Boehner asked the various members of the leadership to commit to including the Stupak language in the conference committee bill. This was of course an effort to tie their hands and would be rebuffed regardless of the legislation at hand. What followed was also standard procedure. There was a perfunctory voice vote, which the chair ruled to the nays, either because that was how he heard it or because that is the majority position of the majority party. Then Stupak requested a recorded vote which was scheduled for later on when debate on all amendments has concluded. Votes are scheduled this way, in blocks, to minimize the number of trips that members need to make to the floor.
on November 7th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Andrew Sullivan links to video of some rather obstreperous Republican maneuvering–or behaving like children, as we call it at the playground.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-party-of-joe-wilson.html
I know this will play with one segment of the populace, but I suspect women voters in particular won’t like it. And being known only for what you can shout down rather than what you can propose seems like a strategy with a limited future–though the GOP has worked it well for the past, what, four or five decades?
on November 7th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
The Stupak amendment has been adopted, 240-194.
on November 7th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Wow. Now for the Big Vote. To be followed by the Really Big Votes if the Senate ever gets it together.
on November 7th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
The Stupak Amendment got more Democratic votes thatn I would have thought. Interesting!
on November 7th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
What was the breakdown? Where do I go to find it?
on November 7th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Whole thing passes, 220-215. Close.
on November 7th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Stupak Amendment carried 240-194. 64 Dems joined 176 Republicans in favor; 194 Dems against.
on November 7th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Joseph Cao, the former Jesuit seminarian and freshman rep from Lousiana, was the lone Republican to vote for the bill. Good for him.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/house-passes-health-care-bill-220-215.php?ref=fpa
on November 7th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
You guys have spent weeks telling us that abortion wasn’t covered by the bill anyway.
What’s the big deal about the Stupak amendment? Why are the pro-choicers so mad about it? I thought abortion wasn’t covered and it was all GOP pandering lies?
Oh, by the way…what’s in the bill?
What do the supporters of the bill here on this blog have to tell the rest of us about the content of the bill?
on November 8th, 2009 at 2:18 am
“When debating the amendment, both sides pro & con laid claim to maintaining the status quo with the Hyde Amendment. So which version does that? Or do neither?”
Since both sides complied with the Hyde Amendment, the “con” side was clearly the winner with respect to this argument. The pre-amendment bill achieved Hyde Amendment compliance by a segregation of funds approach similar to that currently used by states whose Medicaid plans include abortion coverage. The claim that the Stupak Amendment hews more closely to the status quo is based on a comparison drawn with the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, which does not allow policies that include abortion coverage.
The Stupak Amendment goes beyond the Hyde amendment in several ways:
1) It forbids individuals from choosing a health plan with abortion coverage should they accept any federal subsidies whatsoever. Since the House bill provides subsidies up to 400% of the poverty level, which is expected to be an income level in excess of $100,000 for a family of four, this is a significant restriction on both lower income and middle income individuals.
2) It requires that each insurer offering a plan that includes abortion coverage also include an identical plan without abortion coverage on the exchange.
3) It forbids the “public option” from offering abortion coverage.
The Stupak Amendment allows individuals who have received subsidized health insurance to separately purchase standalone abortion coverage with their own funds. However, this addition seemed rather superfluous to me, as I know of no a la carte “abortion insurance” currently and there is no guarantee that such would arise.
I would argue that the Stupak Amendment unequivocally pushes the status quo in an anti-abortion direction. It does not actually resemble the Hyde Amendment, which was largely a purity law designed to protect the consciences of those concerned that their tax dollars would be used for abortion. Rather, it is more aptly described as carrot-and-stick legislation, much like the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which used the promise of federal funds, and the threat of their withdrawal, to incentivize the states to raise the minimum legal drinking age to 21.
on November 8th, 2009 at 6:12 am
Thank you for clarifying re: Hyde Amendment & status quo.
on November 8th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Mark: whatever others have said about the bill itself not covering abortion, I think a provision introduced by Lois Kapps of CA restricted direct fed funds going to pay for abortions but allowed indirect fed funds to pay for them. Among other things this would entail the govt. reimbursing abortion clinics with premiums paid to the feds on the exchange. Stupak does seem to go further than the Hyde Amendment in restricting the use of non-government premiums; on the other hand, it preserves the intent of the Hyde Amendment in barring the government from paying abortion clinics. Or so I think. Others more knowledgable may want to enter in.
What else is in the bill? You know pretty well if you’ve been following the debate: mandates for individuals, mandates for businesses, prohibitions on insurance companies concerning pre-existing conditions, an insurance exchange that (at the moment) includes a public option.
As we all know, as soon as something is finally made law after the sausage making in the House-Senate Conference, we will see refinements, corrections, additions–an inevtiable part of the process in legislation so complex.
on November 8th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Margaret said: “What else is in the bill? You know pretty well if you’ve been following the debate: mandates for individuals, mandates for businesses, prohibitions on insurance companies concerning pre-existing conditions, an insurance exchange that (at the moment) includes a public option.”
Just a note. There has to be compulsory coverage mandates in order to eliminate the pre-existing condition exclusions. This for the simple reason that there has to be a way to prevent people from only buying insurance when they need more services than the premiums they would pay in.
on November 8th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Some artcles are trumpeting passage last night as a great accheivement, bu tI think it’s a bay step with Senate and conference still to come.
To me the final bill will be what deserves critical attention.
Last night’s vote show how solidified the divide is and how a number of Dems have been cowee by the angry neocon position that budges not an inch.
Bipartisanship is a joke in our country, though subsequently everyone voted in a resolution in honor of the victims and heroes(heroins) of Ft. Hood. -What else?
I also agree with Jean in the thread above that overheated rhetoric will just serve the divide as a final bill is shaped.
on November 8th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Right Bob Nunz: it’s the final legislation that counts. Yet, without the stuggle in the House, there would be no final bill.
On the divide: please note a Republican Congressmen, Joseph Cao (a Vietnamese-American I would guess), voted for the bill.
And all you Kucich fans!!! he voted against it. Noble reasons I’m sure, and at some point he knew it would pass anyway. Has preserved his purity.
on November 8th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Here’s the Times breakout of the Stupak Amendment vote…
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/1/884
Happy to see David Obey (he who was one of Bishop Burke’s original victims on the communion question) of Wisconsin and Tom Periello of Virgina on that list.