AP Breaking: House Democrats clear impasse holding up vote

[ind_thinker2]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091107/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul


WASHINGTON – House Democrats have cleared an impasse over abortion that has been holding up a vote on sweeping health care legislation.

A vote is expected on Saturday — after President Barack Obama makes a late morning trip to the Capitol to make one final pitch for the legislation.

According to Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, he and other abortion opponents will be given a chance to insert tougher abortion restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.

The leadership hopes that no matter how that vote turns out, Democrats will then unite to give the health care bill a majority over unanimous Republican opposition.


=======================================

I donot understand why do we have crazy dem's like STUPAK, i saw him on Chris Mat few days back and he sounded like a freeper. Pregnancy is a medical condition and any method to carry it further or termination must be covered in HCR. Why are we scared of giving rights to women?

[bluestateguy]

1. I think the abortion language would pass

You have at least 40 anti-abortion Democrats, plus quite a few pro-choice Democrats who oppose funding of abortion, combined with possibly all Republicans, and you will likely see Stupak's amendment pass.

[saracat]

2. F**CK them all. They fold to the anti-choicers the Religious Right wins.. This makes me vomit.

This is what the Rahm dominated Admin brings us. Women's health thrown under the bus again. And we are going to cheer. And it will be called a necessary act. But we "got health care" they will say. How selfish of you too demand the rights of personhood.That can wait.
Every woman needs to understand what just done. the reelection nof the blue dogs has just been proclaimed more important than a woman's dignity as a human being. And no, I do NOT think this is hyperbole.

[vaberella]

3. Whats the language of the house amendment before I agree with you?

Because if this is about funding...well there are already laws in effect that prevent that funding, so I don't see the importance of it in the bill nor do I see it a problem if it is included in the bill to appease some democrats.

[saracat]

4. Appeasement is all right with you? Gee what if it was appeasing the KKK? Would that be OK?

When it comes to women, some never see the problem with appeasement.

[mimi85]

5. However, many insurance companies already pay for abortion...

Amazingly enough. That is, if you have insurance.

[saracat]

6. But you see, poor women won't be covered. Only those fortunate enough

to have private insurance will be.

[phleshdef]

54. Poor women without coverage seem to find ways to get abortions all the time.

I disagree with the amendment but you are blowing it WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of proportion.

[ind_thinker2]

42. BTW LET ME TELL YOU PLANNEDPARENHOOD TAKES $500 for an abortion

they do waive this of in certain cases. Think about 15 year old who has no wisdom or strength to consult anybody will be forced to be not covered.

Where will she get $500 ?

Hopefully progressives will fund planned parenthood, but they are operational in few areas.

Will Men ready give up life/death decisions on others?

DOUBLE STANDARDS.

[vaberella]

9. You've got a lot of fuckin' nerve you know that?! A lot of damned nerve.

First off I'm fuckin' female, so you can get a clue. All I asked for the damned language, not your railing bullshit. I don't need to read that. Also, what I asked, quite clearly, is that there is already a law which states that the Gov. doesn't pay for abortions. ie...it has been and already is in affect...so repetitive language on the same topic means nothing (if it is repetitive). It keeps them quiet and that's the end of it.


I'm tired of people talking out of their ass, like you, to make a point which is wasn't even made because you have some indignent anger. You should be peeved by the original law, rather than langauge repeating the same shit. Instead your railing against the amendment.

Further more, I don't know what the KKK has to do with anything. It's not even a sound anology.

[Politics_Guy25]

11. Bravo!!-n/t

[saracat]

17. You are the one with nerve. I don't care what the language is. The reports

released have indicated it is more "stringent" against abortion. That was the press release, not my words. What you don't seem tol understand is the danger inherent in trading your respect to keep"them" quiet.What is reprehensible is the fact that "they " are Dems who are blackmailing other Dems with this issue in order to suppress rights. And I am peeved by the original law and so stated at the time of its passage but not only did many Dems not oppose it then but they are using this to bolster it. But heck if you don't have a problem with it it must be just fine.

[vaberella]

24. You're still shouting crap. So no more time wasted on you. Anyone have Knowledge please help.

What press release?! Where is the language? You dont know what the language is, nor do you care, but the press release is enough for you? Well some of us are not one-sided freaks like you. Some of us would like to see all the cards on the table to make the best decision and have the best knowledge on the topic as we come to a conclusion. IE Logical thinkers like to think that way.

If you can't provide the language, than you're just railing and that's the end of it for me with your attitude.

Anyone with the language found in the bill or the bill itself and can tell me the page no. I'd be really happy with anything like that. Also you can send me the press release the person above gets his/her information from.

Thanks.

[saracat]

30. This is what is known NOW .Read below. Stupak hasn't put the bill language out yet

And you are unnecessarily rude and insulting. And my attitude is because I care about reproductive rights.And because I find the very idea of appeasing blackmailers disgusting.

You will note "According to Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, he and other abortion opponents will be given a chance to insert tougher abortion restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor."


AP Breaking: House Democrats clear impasse holding up vote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091107/ap_on_go_co/us_heal...


WASHINGTON – House Democrats have cleared an impasse over abortion that has been holding up a vote on sweeping health care legislation.

A vote is expected on Saturday — after President Barack Obama makes a late morning trip to the Capitol to make one final pitch for the legislation.

According to Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, he and other abortion opponents will be given a chance to insert tougher abortion restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.

The leadership hopes that no matter how that vote turns out, Democrats will then unite to give the health care bill a majority over unanimous Republican opposition.

[Clio the Leo]

34. But how can you be upset about something that you haven't even read yet? NT

[saracat]

38. Because they have already told us what it WILL say.

Insurance companies that participate in the exchange will be banned from covering abortions. Period.

[Clio the Leo]

32. Do you want HCR or not?

Is the simple question, yes or no?

Stupak et al have said they will not vote in favor of the House bill if they are not given an opportunity to offer this amendment. Those supporting women's rights say they will not vote for a bill that contains the amendment. Rock and hard place. So what is Nancy to do? ....... You give Stupak the chance to offer the amendment and the women's rights proponents a chance to defeat the amendment. That's how it works.

We're all in a paddle boat, we're a 100 yards from the shore. Half of us want to row one way, half want to row the other. If either side stops rowing, the boat goes nowhere and if we cant get the boat to show in time for winter, the hard freeze will come and we'll have to go back to where we came from with likely no chance of setting sail again in our lifetime.

Now is NOT the time to show our collective hind ends. We have to come up with a method of rowing that is agreeable to everyone.

Or the boat will sink. ...... (and this is where the metaphor ends) ....... and millions more will suffer and die needlessly.

[saracat]

37. As this isn't a real health care reform bill, I am angry that we had a chance

to get real, solid health care and are settling for a very empty bill that ensures few.And the cost of it is way to high both in principle and financially. I am angry that friends in congress are going to have to gamble their careers to vote for a bill that is less than it should be and they will pay the same price as if it had been a good bill. This bill will save few if any.At best, it is a gesture and at worst a payoff to the insurance companies.

[Clio the Leo]

39. Sara, as one good Democrat to another, I love ya to death....

.... I understand you're not happy with the bill in its present form/s. I've been clear on that for quite some time. ;)

But we're beyond that at this point. That ship has already sailed and the bill is what is and being upset over what could have been isn't going move the ball foward.

Would you prefer that the bill not pass? Yes or no.

And that's fine if you would prefer things to stay as they are and the bill not pass, but if that's the case, then we have nothing more to debate on the matter.

[saracat]

43. It is going to pass no matter what. It is a bad bill but it will pass.

And it doesn't really matter what I think. I guess it is time for me to give up.it was just that i really hoped for the real thing and I really hate the state of the party.I almost can't recognize democrats anymore for all the compromise. You are right. the ship has sailed. I like you too Clio. I just am so very disgusted.

[Clio the Leo]

47. But we're the "Democrat" party ........ we fight, it's what we do....

..... I have a hard time seeing the advantage of the squabbling but it's better than being a lock-stepper ...... I think. :shrug:

Well, it's better than being a Palinite ... or as I call them, "Panty-ites." :)




And I'm glad you think it will pass. I'm gettin' a wee bit skurred lately. :)

[atreides1]

18. If I remember

They want to go so far as to block the private sector from providing coverage for abortions, unless the woman has a rider on her health insurance.

Of course a rider will mean extra costs for a medical procedure.

[saracat]

21. I believe you are correct.

[vaberella]

25. All that I ask is simple. Please provide me the language in the documentation.

Thank You.

[saracat]

31. From post 27 below

"Abortion opponents won a huge last-minute concession late Friday night when leaders agreed to give Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak a vote on his amendment effectively barring insurers that participate in the exchange from providing abortions, except in the case of rape, incest or when the mother's health is in danger."

So the insurance companies, many of which currently ensure abortions, will no longer ensure them.

[Clio the Leo]

35. And do we know how many votes Stupak thinks he has in favor of it?

Serious question ....... not an argument...... because if he's doing this for a show and he doesn't even have the votes to pass it, aren't we getting flustered for nothing?

[saracat]

41. No. Because no matter the result, this was a blackmail attempt by Democrats using a democratic issue

as hostage.And there would not have been this huge delay and debate if he didn't have the votes.Just like pelosi wouldn't let HCR come up for a vote without the votes, he wouldn't bring this to the floor without the votes either. This was the deal.Otherwise he would block the HCR.

[ind_thinker2]

44. Ok the votes will be accounted, not forgotten...

STUPAK is not invincible.

[Clio the Leo]

45. Well, I hate to tell you this.........

..... but that's how Congress works. They were holding issues hostage AS they were writing the Constitution. There almost WASN'T a Union because of slavery. The southern states (we're always the trouble makers) would not have joined the federation if slavery had been outlawed from the jump. So the founding fathers made a concession that allowed the nation to come into being.

The decision they made resulted in the oppression, rape and murder of hundreds of thousands of people. The greatest sin against mankind aside from the Holocaust. But the result was the very country we'd all fight and die for. It's quite the conundrum.

Law making is never a pretty thing. All we can do is take the mess we have and try to make the best of it and, in doing so, hope that history will look back upon us favorably.

[ind_thinker2]

46. "Conundrum" Thanks for your thoughtful response.

[Clio the Leo]

48. you're welcome, I've been trying to find a way to work that into a sentence all week...

.... and now that the Friday night bar fight has ended, I think I'll finally go to bed.

.... count some Blue Dogs until I fall asleep....

[Clio the Leo]

49. *

[saracat]

50. Yes. A conundrum it is. But somehow, for the moment, it would have been nice to think

those kind of concessions were no longer necessary. And to have to make them to our own side! It does indeed seem by the comments I have been hearing and reading that the difference between the GOP and the dems may be smaller than some realized. Just today a young man, who worked for the Obama campaign was told by a veteran duer that he was unemployed because he likely was lazy and trying to use government assistance rather than looking for a job. They mocked him and his hometown and said many unemployed were just users. On a Democratic Board.A poster today claimed that abused women "ask for it" . There are so many of these instances and our tent has broadened to the point I am not sure we stand for anything.

[Clio the Leo]

51. ehhhh ..... I think those are outlying opinions.........

.... not really representative of enough Democrats to count.

And there will ALWAYS be concessions ..... in Congress ....... in politics ...... in life. There 80 gabillion people all standing on 1 earth. 80 gabillion people with 80 gabillion ideas on how to get things done.

The President of the United States, the leader of the free world, would like to be able to take a stroll through downtown DC alone late at night, walk around and think, but he cant. Not for a long time if ever again. Often times you have to give up a lot to get what you want, what you think is better for the common good.

Life is full of concessions.

[saracat]

52. Forgive me, but some concessions ought not to be made . But

It doesn't matter in the long run.If you have to concede who you are in order to make political points, the gain is never worth it. Just my opinion though. Stuff about selling your soul and all that.

[Hansel]

59. The issue is that any insurance company who wants to be on the exchange

cannot cover abortion. They do not want any chance of public dollars going to fund abortions.

How many insurance companies do you think will not dump covering abortions so that they can participate? That is the issue.

Also, a woman's right to choose is protected under the Constitution, but even if she is paying 100% of her health care premium she will not be allowed to have this procedure covered because of our never ending Daddy State, if she is in a situation where she has to go through the exchange. Exceptions for the life of the mother provisions are complete bullshit. You have to be literally dying before they do anything. I can tell you that from my own personal experience. I'm lucky to be alive and if it hadn't been for Planned Parenthood, I wouldn't.

This does not bode well for a single payer will look like if we ever get there. At that point no woman in American will have this procedure covered by insurance because apparently the Catholic Church runs the Congress. I would like to see a lawsuit filed under separation of church and state that would force the government to drop this provision because of the Bishops involvement in Congressional Chambers with this. They are completely out of bounds and should lose their tax exempt status. It is appalling that they are allowed to force their will in the halls of Congress and still operate tax free.

If a woman is paying 100% for her premium it seems like the government has overstepped it "theological" bounds. I am REALLY sick of religion creeping into our government. It just keeps getting worse and worse.

[Aramchek]

58. you can't stand it that HCR is going to pass, and Obama is the reason

bitter to the very end, i see...

[FrenchieCat]

7. Making sausage is quite an art.....

thank goodness, we may have folks in charge who know how to get it made.

[Politics_Guy25]

8. Saracat, dear...

You really need to get over the 2008 primaries. What's done is done.

"Rahm" dominated administration? Your pro-democratic rhetoric is inspiring!

BTW, Rahm was a senior Clinton administration official in term #1. Perhaps you should take up your problem with his influence with THEM?

[saracat]

13. This has nothing to do with the primaries.It has everything to do with anti-choice and religion

dominated conservudems. I despised when Rahhm "recruited" pols like Heath Schuler and Jim Webb. I don't give a damn whose admin rahm is in. he thinks "winning" by catering to conservatives and stripping womenof their dignity is acceptable.We are reaping what he sowed in 2006.

[Clio the Leo]

36. Do you have any thoughts on the fact that.........

.... the author of the Violence Against Women Act has an office about 50 feet from Rahm and is, supposedly, allowing this dignity stripping to take place?

Or is Joe selling out ot the DINO's too?

And that doesn't even address the fact that if you think RAHM is "stripping womenof their dignity" then the President must be a party to it. That's fine if you feel that way, but go ahead and say it.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

19. I have always held the same position on abortion rights. Always.

And I have always supported health care for ALL.The HATE reflected isn't coming from me. I do despise what is being done to the people by some who claim to be Democrats.I suppose those 40 pro-life dems are to be admired?

[CitizenLeft]

56. so that's who ignore is.

I was wondering, but only in passing.

Hang in there Frenchie, Clio and Vaberella! :hi:

[saracat]

10. Some must be so proud today.Disrespect for women is now

included in the garbage health bill. Poor women are now guaranteed little reproductive health care.And birth control is considered an abortfacient by those folks leading the anti-choice charge.And this is brought to us as something to be proud of by this Admin and Congress.

[Politics_Guy25]

12. Delete

I can kind of understand where you are coming from now.

[saracat]

14. Yes.

[saracat]

20. Thank you.I think.

[ind_thinker2]

22. thanks for understanding.

[saracat]

23. Your welcome.

[ind_thinker2]

16. Folks, I am happy atleast Nancy Pelosi (women) is fighting for right..

but when men/church fight for strict abortion language, they have no rights.

Lets get women lawmakers and have them decide, I will be happy to abide by the decision, but STUPAK NOOOOOOOOOOO

this guy is Mr BACHMAN, he and bachman must be dragged out of congress...

We must make it clear to blue dogs that if "NO" vote to HCR, no votes from progressives or dems.

[Kaleva]

26. Stupak is very popular amongst Dems in his district.

[ind_thinker2]

28. Then he must be brought down via ACTBLUE

We need progressives not DINO's

[Kaleva]

29. Won't work as the Dem base here tends to be pro-life.

Stupak wins elections in landslides every since he first ran in '92 'cause his views reflect those of a majority of the citizens of his district.

[ind_thinker2]

40. Ok, he will pay... nobody is indespensible look at NY23

palinsta thought things will be easy in ny23 but public is not dumb.

We will see STUPAK landslide victory with no progressive support.

[ind_thinker2]

27. Sick news from Politico, Abortion deal as Dems try to reach 218

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29250.html

Democratic officials said their count of hard “nos” was in the range of about 25. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi can afford to lose up to 40 votes and still win passage, there are dozens of other lawmakers who remain on the fence publicly.

Abortion opponents won a huge last-minute concession late Friday night when leaders agreed to give Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak a vote on his amendment effectively barring insurers that participate in the exchange from providing abortions, except in the case of rape, incest or when the mother's health is in danger.

The concession was expected to free up the votes Democrats need to approve the bill, even though reproductive rights groups were expected to vehemently oppose it.

_______________________

WHY DO WE NEED CHURCH AND CONGRESS TO DECIDE RIGHTS OF WOMEN?

[saracat]

33. We do not and should not.But as you can see, many just don't care.

[phleshdef]

53. Though I disagree with the amendment, they aren't deciding anyone's "rights".

The amendment does not take away one's right to an abortion, the amendment basically reinforces existing laws that prevent certain types of government sponsored funding for abortions that don't fall under the circumstances of rape, incest or endangered health.

[saracat]

60. it makes the Hyde Amendment permanent and extends the bannon abortions to private insurers.

[ind_thinker2]

61. This is totally necessary, we donot have to prove hyde amendment again and again

Current bill confirms to Hyde amendmemt at all... the problem seems to be catholic bishops will not endorse HCR without this.

[saracat]

62. Actually it is worse as it makes the Hyde Amendement permanent

instead of renewable and extends the ban on abortions to private insurers.

[annabanana]

55. Stupak is a member of The Family (C Street) . . .n/t

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. Did Pelosi promise Stupak a VOTE on the legislation

or did she promise that she (and others) would vote for it? If all she promised was a vote on Stupak's crappy amendment (which is what it sounds like), then I don't understand what the big deal is? If it passes, it passes, if it doesn't it doesn't. At least Stupak and the others will be able to say their peace and their intransigence won't derail HCR entirely (although judging for a lot of postings here, it sounds like a lot of people would be fine with that). :shrug:

[trueblue2007]

63. someone should get rid of Stupak. Can't he be impeached??

[ind_thinker2]

64. i am with you, dragging out of house will be better