"Pro-Choice Caucus leader: Stupak doesn't have the votes to kill health bill."

[Clio the Leo]

Pro-Choice Caucus leader: Stupak doesn't have the votes to kill health bill

By Michael O'Brien - 03/04/10 03:42 PM ET
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) doesn't have the votes to stop healthcare legislation, the leader of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus said Thursday.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the co-chairwoman of the abortion-rights-supporting caucus, predicted that abortion would not prove to be a sticking point among Democrats that brings down health reform efforts.

"I don't think Congressman Stupak has the votes to kill healthcare legislation over his language not being in there," DeGette told The Hill.

Abortion rights became a key part of House and Senate debates over healthcare legislation last year, with Democratic leaders in both chambers having offered restrictions on federal subsidies to health plans covering abortion to win over key centrist Democrats' votes.

The House adopted an amendment from Stupak which abortion-rights supporters like DeGette had decried under the assumption that it would eventually be removed. Stupak is now threatening to fell the bill as it comes up for another vote unless it meets the standard set by his amendment.

DeGette said that Stupak's threat to vote against the bill, along with 11 other Democrats who'd previously supported it, meant that the bill would go down.

"He says he has 10 or 11 people who will vote no, but a lot of those people voted no the first time, but there are also a lot of other people who voted no the first time who now want to support the bill," she said.

... and these, my friends, the FORMER "no" voters are the very people the President has been courting the last two days.

[TheBigotBasher]

1. Brilliant news.

[saigon68]

2. He is a Pawn of these Guys

[Cha]

3. Thank you!

Good Courting!

[TomCADem]

4. Thank God - Plotting To Kill HCR With Mitch McConnell

What exactly makes him a Democrat? Heck, even Lieberman is pro-choice.

[customerserviceguy]

5. There are a number of congresscritters

who may well combine to kill the bill.

Not only Bart Stupak and the pro-lifers, but there are those who will rightfully distrust than the reconciliation bill will A) contain sufficient things to change the Senate bill into something more like the House bill and B) even pass the Senate, which has zero legal obligation to pass it.

Let's not forget the House members who are scared shitless about HCR since watching Scott Brown win in true-blue Massachusetts.

[ChicagoSuz219]

6. He's pro-choice... n/t

[customerserviceguy]

11. Yes, Scott Brown is.

But his election put fear into the hearts of those whose districts are turning from blue to purple, and especially from purple to red.

There are at least a dozen Representatives who are making the calculation: "Should I vote no, and hope this issue goes away for the fall so I can get re-elected, or should I just go out in a blaze of glory by voting for the Senate's bill, without any assurances that a reconciliation change will take place?"

[karynnj]

13. I think they know that already voted for the House bill

and if nothing passes, they still will be harassed for that vote and the Republicans will likely win in characterizing it even more negatively than before. Their BEST chance is to pass it. That victory alone will - as almost always happens - raise Obama's and their approval. Consider that the Republicans against them will be against them either way. The Democrats angry because of gridlock are more likely to approve.

Also consider that many elderly people, who now believe the eye popping idea that the Republicans are protecting Medicare which teh Democrats want to destroy, will see their Medicare is still there and the same - except the donut hole is gone. Consider that among the people just above the Medicaid threshold will get a subsidy that will pay most of the premiums they had no chance of affording before the plan was passed.

Look at the faces of the Republicans when they say passing it "will hurt the Democrats" - and they will run on repealing it. Do you really think that will work? The Democrats have the option of running on the need to fine tune it.

[customerserviceguy]

14. Admittedly

they might be hung out to dry by voters for saying 'yes' the first time, and 'no' the second. But it's easy to justify to both sides, they can say to a progressive audience that they liked HCR, but hated the Senate bill, and didn't trust the Senate to do the right thing.

To a conservative audience, they could say that they were wrapped up in the bubble of Washington D. C. when they voted 'yes', but since then they listened to the voters and changed it to 'no'. Congresscritters often do the "I voted for it before I voted against it" and pull it off a lot better than John Kerry did.

As for Medicare, I asked my dyed-in-the-wool Democratic-voting mother about that today, and even she's worried about the premiums for her and Dad going up. And they're in the Kaiser HMO system, which is a pioneer in controlling costs!

I do think running on repealing the Senate bill, especially if it has not been softened by a reconciliation measure that considerably would make it easier for people to swallow, will be a winning strategy for the Repubes. They'll beat the drum loudly between the day the President signs something, and Election Day.

[karynnj]

15. What John Kerry said to explain it was fine, the media and, the Republicans and later - other

Democrats distorted it.

Kerry voted FOR a version that he and Biden sponsored that would have rolled back the tax cots on the top 1%, he voted AGAINST the Bush supported version that added it to the debt. TWO different bills - two different votes. Not hard to understand at all - and in these days where fiscal conservatism is big, it looks even better than in 2003 when he did it.

[customerserviceguy]

18. My point was

Kerry may have done an Olympian job with his vote, but he didn't stick the landing, so he got points taken off.

My point was also that there are ways that congresscritters could vote yes before and no now, and just possibly get away with it, especially if America's attention has moved on to something other than HCR by November.

[lamp_shade]

7. Rachel beat the shit out of him last night. Let's see what happens now.

[City Lights]

8. That was a thing of beauty! nt

[polichick]

9. She sure did - stupid Stupak. nt

[a kennedy]

10. Yup, she sure kick his arse.....

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[HughMoran]

12. Stuckin Fupak

Talk about a Dem I'd like to punch in the face. :mad:

[jenmito]

16. GREAT for us-terrible for the "liberal" MSM. n/t

[enough already 2]

17. If he doesn't have the votes...

...why haven't they called a vote on the Senate bill yet?

[jenmito]

19. They have to work out the exact language of the reconciliation bill first. n/t

[BlueIdaho]

20. Asshats like Stupak have had their moment in the spotlight - time to get the hook.

Time to sideline the dilettantes and primadonnas and finish the damn job. Stupak knows full well that other federal legislation already covers his issue. Enough with the public hand wringing already.