Late last week, the National Review summed up the fight over a government takeover of health care this way: "The attention is on the Senate, but the battle is in the House." You see, Democrats want to force the House to vote on the bill already passed by the Senate by March 18 –– the day the president leaves for an overseas trip. And part of the ObamaCare battle is the abortion language — it clearly allows federal funding for abortion.
News broke early yesterday morning announcing that Representative Bart Stupak thinks a "compromise” can be reached on the issue of abortion funding in the Democrats' Senate version of the health care bill. “I’m more optimistic than I was a week ago,” Stupak said in an interview between meetings with constituents in his northern Michigan district. Hmmm... while many were speculating the meaning behind the so-called "compromise," including myself, it looks like Stupak had an interview with The Weekly Standard yesterday, where he clarified what was really going on. "Obviously they don’t know me," Stupak said in his interview. "If I didn’t cave in November, why would I do it now after all the crap I’ve been through? Everyone’s going around saying there’s a compromise — there’s no such thing," Stupak said. What's changed between this week and last, Stupak went on, is that he had his first real conversation with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Congressman Henry Waxman about fixing the bill.
The latest health care "drama" began to unfold directly following the health care summit “sham” –– plus C-SPAN, minus the beer –– and President Obama’s news conference, escorted by “people in the white coats,” urging Congress to allow an "up or down vote" on the Democrats' health care bill. Since then, two key words have been in the limelight: one that has the power to give “life,” the other to “kill.” Pundits, politicians, and American citizens have been discussing and debating reconciliation and back into the health care debate is the dreaded and highly controversial abortion issue.
Stupak has made it clear that “he and a dozen other Democrats who voted yes the first time will vote no on the Senate health care bill because it provides taxpayer funding for abortion." Last week it was the clash over who was telling the truth, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Stupak were practically calling each other liars. Nancy Pelosi got irritated (what else is new) during her weekly news conference, claiming, "There is no federal funding for abortion. That is the law of the land. It is not changed in this bill." Three hours later, Stupak fired back. “She’s incorrect,” he said. “I’d ask the speaker to direct her attention to page 2069 through page 2078. There are two ways in those pages where you pay for abortion. Number one, you get tax breaks that subsidize your insurance policy that will pay for abortion. Number two, when you read the legislation, one dollar per month for all enrollees, must go into this fund for ‘reproductive care,’ which includes abortion coverage.”
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - roger nowosielski
I don't see why this issue should make a difference, Christine.
If I were there, I'd just press for having it approved, even with the Stupak amendment. One can always try to reverse it later on.
So really, I don't see why this public-funding-of-abortions issue should derail the legislation.
2 - Christine
Because they are idiots!
3 - Ruvy
Are you going to allow some stupid overpaid congressmaggot to stop you all from jumping off the cliff like crazed lemmings? You know his fax number. Fax him to death!
Talk the fucker into supporting his commander-in-chief already and jump off the cliff into penury.
Jump!! Jump!! We're waiting!
4 - jeannie danna
Christine,
Abortion is wrong, however so is for-profit health care!
I haven't read this article yet, so I can only say right now that the issue of abortion is not going to deprive this nation from quality affordable health care any longer.
:)I'll be back tonight or tommorow, after I watch Roger's video on the Reali$t'$ thread. I bet you can't wait!
5 - John Wilson
SCOTUS can overturn this clause because it interferes with a womans constitutional right to abortion.
6 - Christine
Ruvy: I was actually hoping that the "stupid overpaid congressmaggot" (your words--lol) would "kill" this stupid, costly and corrupt bill!
Ruvy: Hope you are well, been reading your article and comments,but too many things going on for me to comment.
Hi Jeannie: chat later
Mr. Wilson: You can have all the frkn abortions you want, but US "pro-life taxpayers" don't have to pay for it. It is called the Hyde Amendment.
7 - Clavos
If I were there, I'd just press for having it approved, even with the Stupak amendment. One can always try to reverse it later on.
C'mon Roger. You know full well that once legislation is enacted, it is extremely difficult to get it rescinded.
8 - roger nowosielski
Well, that would be one stumbling block the Democrats would have to get over, it seems, if they want to have it their way.
9 - Christine
Great point, Clavos, it is worse then trying to get rid of a rotten teacher with tenure.
"But we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it!" Nancy Pelosi quote: March 9th, 2010
I am still laughing at that one!
10 - roger nowosielski
Yeah, that was kind of stupid, even for a politician.
11 - Silas Kain
...and as the Democrats get more desperate, you can bet the fight over ObamaCare will get much more ugly.
The first problem is that this is NOT ObamaCare. It's a sell out to the health care industry. We can try and pin this on Barack Obama all we want but careful study of his statements during the campaign compared to this bill prove one thing -- it ain't ObamaCare.
I agree with Stupak in his voicing concerns over federally funded abortions. While I will fight to my death for a woman to have the right to choose, I will fight equally hard to allow the opposition to present their case. The bottom line is that the parameters in place since Roe v. Wade are the law of the land.
Rather than perpetuate this senseless war of words between enemy camps -- why not a new approach? It's all about educating our young and their parents. If a girl has a baby under the age of 18, make the parents financially responsible as well as the father of the baby. If both natural parents are under 18, place responsibility where it belongs -- on THEIR parents. After all, is it not up to the PARENTS to insure that their respective children know about sex and its practices?
As distasteful and disturbing and the whole concept of abortion may be, at the heart of the debate is an individual woman's right to have domain over her body. To go back to the days of back alley abortions is unacceptable in an advanced society as ours.
So if the abortion debate derails "ObamaCare" so be it. The plan is flawed to begin with. It's time for USA-Care to be at the front and center of the debate without pharmaceuticals and insurance at the table.
12 - Christine
Silas: thanks for your insightful insight.
ObamaCare has such a nice ring to it. It is better than the "Democrat's Health Care Reform Bill." Too long and and doesn't sound warm and fuzzy. And I could use other names for its title, but the BC editors may have to [bleep] them out.
13 - El Bicho
"US "pro-life taxpayers" don't have to pay for it."
Since when have any tax payers had a say in where their money went?
14 - Silas Kain
Personally, Christine, I find this whole health care reform process to be a complete fraud on the American public. They've all made their decisions. They just have to figure out how they're going to shove it down our throats.
Since when have any tax payers had a say in where their money went?
Is that a rhetorical question?
15 - roger nowosielski
" . . . if the abortion debate derails "ObamaCare" so be it. The plan is flawed to begin with. It's time for USA-Care to be at the front and center of the debate without pharmaceuticals and insurance at the table."
But then, you'd have to wait another twenty years, Silas, for such a thing to happen.
And why is this expectation that the bills we pass ought to be perfect. They never have been and never will be.
They're always flawed.
16 - Silas Kain
Indeed they are, Roger. It's just amazing to me how inflated everything has become. And it does go back to our incessant "size matters" mentality. Take detergents, for instance. Why are they 3X concentrated and in smaller environmentally friendly packaging as opposed to the super-duper 128 oz value size? Years ago companies got us to believe that bigger is better. They sold stuff like size mattered. What was the difference? Water content. Liquid detergent was filled with lots of water and a little chemicals. Powdered was crushed peanuts shells combined with soap. Why didn't they just do it all along? Would we be in the trash heap now? Oh, but no, Americans are excessive. We always think bigger is better.
So the bottom line back to health care. Just what DOES a pill cost? Just how much of our insurance premiums go to actual administration as opposed to "lobbyist" or commercial advertiser? K Street is rich with corporate cash to pay off Congress. Madison Avenue is rampant with corporate Svengalis that come up with over the top commercials designed to rope the consumer into yet another unnecessary purchase. If we don't change the very fabric of our society, we might as well throw in that Chinese made Egyptian hand towel we bought in the Martha Stewart Home Collection Center at our local Target located right across the street from WalMart - America's new church..
17 - Silas Kain
And how does all this apply to abortion? It's simple. If we had more disposable cash to invest in our kids they would be educated enough to realize the ramifications of sex before marriage. Until we achieve a generation of informed young adults, abortion will continue to be a thorn in our sides.
18 - Christine
#13. El, tag your it!
19 - roger nowosielski
The point is, Silas, you can't really reconcile public and private interests. The end result is bound to be half-ass.
Of course, if private interests were less acute and more cognizant of the public good, the gap could hopefully be bridged.
But since they're not and are in fact diametrically opposed to one another, it's always a tug of war.
20 - jeannie danna
Christine,
I heard that!
it is worse then trying to get rid of a rotten teacher with tenure.
:(
21 - jeannie danna
Silas,
Why can't I leave a comment in your blog?
22 - Christine
Jeannie: not all teachers just the real bad ones, of which as you know I know a few this year. No offense really. Guess I could of said it was like trying to get rid of a bad parent or husband. lol
23 - jeannie danna
I know, Christine, I was just teasing. I'm in a really good mood tonight, and that's why I don't want to read your article yet! I want to stay in this good mood. Will I? :)LOL
How you been? I was getting worried about you. Glad your back now! :)It seems like there are few women here in politics.
24 - jeannie danna
OMG, I see Nancey and Obama...I don't want to over-react or nothing like that!
25 - anna
Stand FIRM, Bart. You're the MAN, and I'm voting for you in 2012 -- whether you actively run or not!