Is the House GOP enabling PelosiCare?
[Posted by Karl]
It sort of looks like they are. At the close of Friday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lacked the votes for her version of ObamaCare. She was reportedly about 10 votes short. House Democratic leaders finally decided to allow a vote on the Stupak amendment, which purports to block money in ObamaCare from funding abortions, which made pro-life Dems and apparatchiks in the legislative office of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops happy.
The Stupak amendment — which was apparently needed to secure passage of PelosiCare — is expected to pass with assistance from the GOP. Indeed, the House GOP leadership reportedly intends to back the Stupak amendment and is putting the word out to members about it.
Left unmentioned is what the GOP hopes to get out of it. If 25-30 GOPers voted “present” on the Stupak amendment, there would be some trouble on the House floor. Pro-life Dems could try to blame the GOP for their votes for a pro-choice bill — but surely everyone already knows that the GOP intends to solidly oppose the final bill, even if the Stupak amendment passes. Or they could decide to follow their consciences, even if it meant killing the bill. However, unless Boehner, Cantor and Pence are being more devious than I would expect, the House GOP intends to enable pro-life Dems to provide the winning margin for ObamaCare in the House.
—
Update: Via NRO’s Critical Condition:
With the Stupak amendment set for a vote early this evening, GOP House staffers tell us that its passage is crucial in order to defeat Obamacare down the line. Their logic: Stupak came to an agreement last night with House Democratic leaders. If his amendment got a vote, he argued, then he and other pro-life Democrats could support Pelosi’s bill by final passage. It will be a close vote, they predict. Just now on the House floor, Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.) refused to commit to the Stupak amendment being included in the final bill post-conference. And there’s the rub, say the GOP staffers: Stupak should be supported because it preserves current abortion law and blocks federal funding, as well as dividing the Democratic caucus. This is the best way to defeat the bill at its next stage, one says. “The Democrats will battle it out.”
Except that if the Dems can roll their pro-choice members today, they will be able to do it again if the Stupak amendment is part of the final bill, won’t they?
—
Update x2: The HuffPo has this:
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) told reporters that regardless of the outcome of the vote on his amendment, which would severely restrict coverage of reproductive health issues, the House health care bill is headed for passage. He is whipping support for the amendment and estimates he has 225 votes. If he’s right, the amendment will pass, and he predicted enough pro-life Democrats will vote yes on the final bill to put it over the top. But if it fails, he said, enough pro-lifers — ten to 15, he said — will have been satisfied to have had their vote on the floor that they’ll turn around and support the final bill anyway. Picking up ten to 15 votes would give the bill a comfortable margin for passage.
Maybe that is true — or maybe it is what you say to try to discourage GOPers from voting “present.” With the GOP backing for Stupak, we will likely never know.
–Karl
The way I read it, if the Stupak amendment passes, then the hyper-liberal wing among the Democrats may revolt. It would also alienate the Dem’s core constituency.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 11/7/2009 @ 12:55 pmSteven Den Beste,
First, great to see you here; hope to see more from you in the Greenroom.
My read is that there is no way pro-choicers will sink the bill. Healthcare is the Holy Grail of the Left. They will hold their noses and vote “yes.”
Karl (6aa6ff) — 11/7/2009 @ 1:00 pmThe inclusion of a meaningless amendment is brilliant — it gives them cover for the passage of the House bill; as Waxman and others know, the actual bill will be created in conference.
I sometimes wonder if Representatives are naïfs politically. Approving this amendment gives “pro-life” Democrats cover; when the final bill comes with this provision stripped they can excuse their vote with “well, we tried.”
They’ll all vote for this when it comes out of conference committee and then hope their constituents forget this in November 2010.
And of course to have Charlie Rangel up there is hilarious.
steve miller (dae725) — 11/7/2009 @ 1:07 pmThis is but one of about 1990 noxious aspects of this bill.
JD (b32fa4) — 11/7/2009 @ 1:08 pmIf they are gonna pass a marxist health care bill, I say make it as easy as possible for these Democrats to get abortions so they can control their numbers in the population.
It also wouldn’t be a bad idea to offer drugs and alcohol to people who agree to get sterilized. I have a million creative ideas on how we can hold down costs.
j curtis (5126e4) — 11/7/2009 @ 1:20 pmI’m not worried about this passing, to be quite honest. If they ram this through, both houses must return home to face their constituents – you think this past summer’s protests were intense, just wait for round II.
Dmac (a964d5) — 11/7/2009 @ 1:21 pmThe Kossacks are peeing in their pants:
Blue Dogs Are Taking Away Women’s Rights! CALL NOW!
by slinkerwink
Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 09:14:02 AM PST
I had to pop in today because of a crucial vote being taken on the Stupak amendment, which would effectively ban private coverage of abortion for women except in cases of rape, incest, and danger to mother’s health. Currently some private insurance plans allow for coverage of elective abortion, but this amendment would ban private insurers from covering abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s health.
This amendment is a major step back for women’s rights, and we NEED you guys to call these House members below to urge a NO vote on the Stupak amendment!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/7/2009 @ 1:33 pmOne feature of the debate that should be mentioned. We now have a world record for breaking campaign promises.
One hour for Owens. I doubt that will ever be broken because new Congressman usually have to wait months before being sworn in.
Mike K (addb13) — 11/7/2009 @ 1:59 pmMy rep is Norm Dicks (D) WA.
I have called his office and emailed him a number of times with respect to my opposition to NancyCare.
Today, while watching the House debate, I got so
effing mad, I wrote a letter to Mr. Dicks and tried to fax it to his DC office fax number.
Office staffers repeatedly disconnect the fax line after the first or second ring. I swear, if
gnholb (710dbc) — 11/7/2009 @ 2:39 pmI am still standing next election cycle, I will knock on a thousand doors to unseat Norm Dicks
(D) WA
Any word from John Garamendi?
AD - RtR/OS! (89a0a7) — 11/7/2009 @ 2:41 pmHas he even been sworn yet?
Queen Nancy made a big production of swearing-in Owens, but nary a peep about the other Dem elected Tuesday.
Garamendi is too well-known to get much attention. He’s not a novelty. He’s been in office or running for office for more than 30 years — Assembly, governor (unsuccessfully), controller, insurance commissioner, lt. gov, and now Congress.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:29 pmMy grandfather rest in peace used to say a person can be one of three things, stupid, smart or too smart and too smart and stupid is the same thing. The Republicans are once again showing that they are too smart with this silly amendment. If the stated goal is to block this monstrosity from passing then the RNC should publicly state it will go after every ‘blue dog’ that votes for it hammer and tong and the Republicans should now declare even if this disaster passes when they regain Congress they will repeal this bill in it’s entirety along with cap and trade and card check. Indeed they should start agitating for constitutional amendments to preserve individual freedoms and liberty and reduce the scope of government. Give people a reason to vote for them instead of merely against the new communist party.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:38 pmThis is why I’m an independent rather than a Republican. I feel that they play ball with big spenders because they want control of the pot when they win.
I want them to repeal the Tarp and Porkulus funds, not manage them better.
Patricia (b05e7f) — 11/7/2009 @ 3:46 pmThe House Republicans should vote AGAINST the Stupak amendment and make sure that abortion IS included in the bill. Their reason: It will be included in conference, so why make any pretense about some righteous opposition. Help the Democrats be honest.
Scott (5fa5f4) — 11/7/2009 @ 4:32 pmI guess the deal has been done:
Now Congressmen can claim s/he voted against publicly-financed elective abortions but what are the criteria for “elective abortions.” My guess is that if a doctor believes it’s necessary, it’s not elective, and I suspect that includes psychological as well as physical impact. If so, there won’t be many elective abortions.
DRJ (dff2ca) — 11/7/2009 @ 5:51 pmI was wondering when Karl was going to come in and blame the Republicans for something that is 100% the Democrats doing – we easily lose focus on the cause and wring our hands about the affect.
If there was a Republican speaker, would there be a healthcare bill like this?
EricPWJohnson (b2597d) — 11/7/2009 @ 6:39 pmBreaking
Owens may very will be the margin or victory…
words escape me
EricPWJohnson (b2597d) — 11/7/2009 @ 6:53 pmthat should be margin of victory…
Man thats going to ignite another round of nasal gazing
If the margin is really low – this could delay the vote in the Senate for quite awhile
EricPWJohnson (b2597d) — 11/7/2009 @ 6:56 pmWhoops navel gazing
have to wake up now… sorry
EricPWJohnson (b2597d) — 11/7/2009 @ 6:57 pmStoopid as hell to vote yes on this amendment if it would kill the bill this weekend with a no vote.
The question of funding abortion simply isn’t worth passage of all the rest of this murderous bill. It’ll get taken out in conference anyway. Just how moronic is the GOP leadership? This is so utterly depressing.
Ed from SFV (1333b1) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:08 pmEd
So have right ot life people vote FOR PUBLIC FREE ABORTIONS?
That’ll never ever happen – look this is fundamentally why why you dont go rogue 3rd party crap
Yes the Republicans are far far far from perfect
But the Democrats are 100% pure evil.
Its a simple choice the flawed weak willed party that just usually cuts taxes, defends the country and trys to limit or reduce anti business legislation or vote for the wealth redistributing, socialists who only look act moderate during the 75 days of their reelection campaign
EricPWJohnson (b2597d) — 11/7/2009 @ 7:18 pmEric – if it means we kill this bill, we must vote against this amendment. If we kill this bill, nothing changes, does it? There will not be any extra funding for abortions.
We have to get the Blue Dogs in a bind. This seems to be the only chance we will have.
In an attempt to be clear…I am advocating a winning strategy, not endorsing a single, solitary, elective abortion.
Ed from SFV (1333b1) — 11/7/2009 @ 8:03 pmi think the point of the GOP staffers is that the supporters of the Stupak Amendment will be MORE likely to vote against passage of any bill coming out of conference without the Amendment given that it passed the House, than they would be if the Amendment got a legit up-or-down vote and lost. In the latter instance, how could they complain if the version coming back from conference lacked the Stupak amendment? Now, with the Stupak Amendment part of the passed bill, they are much more likely to vote against the final bill coming back from conference if Waxman makes good on his promise to strip it out.
WLS Shipwrecked (3d3fb8) — 11/8/2009 @ 12:14 amIf the Republicans had voted present on the Stupak amendment, the pro-choice Democrats would also have voted present on the amendment, thus allowing the other Democrats to pass the amendment. (As long as a quorum is present, then the plurality of those voting is sufficient to pass items.)
Ed Unneland (18eb94) — 11/10/2009 @ 10:52 am[…] it? The situation looks a lot like the Stupak amendment vote in the House, which provided CYA to faux-life Democrats in return for the temporary illusion of a victory by anti-abortion interest groups. Senators of all […]
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » ObamaCare: Nelson is Stupak all over again, but possibly worse (e2f069) — 12/7/2009 @ 9:35 pm