« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

What Saturday’s House Vote Means

First, let me apologize to RedState readers for taking so long to write and post this overdue piece, the time I allocated to write this was the same time the site was down for maintenance over the weekend.

Regardless, my predictions of winning the House floor vote were wrong.

Simply put, the pro-lfe amendment by Rep. Stupak moved enough Dems into the yes category — but the price paid by Speaker Pelosi was to throw the pro-abortion groups under the bus — and there is a new, titanium strong pro-life baseline consensus on public funding or facilitating the killing of innocent babies: the US House is at a !@#&!$&# NO on that.

Had Rep. Stupak’s amendment failed, the House bill would have failed.

No doubt, and the shock of seeing 64 Dem votes for Rep. Stupak’s don’t use public money to kill the innocents was a Maxell moment for both the Democratic and Republican House Leadership. No one predicted that high a Yes Dem vote.

The desperate position the Speaker must have been in to have to accept the Stupak amendment should not be understated. She and her pro-abortion pals understand that Stupak was a huge step down the path of America becoming a pro-life nation. They have imposed upon themselves and their ilk a negative precedent which cannot be undone.

Dropping the Stupak amendment in conference, should the bill pass the Senate, which I doubt — will mean the conference report will fail on the House floor.

Just think of the desperation of the Speaker, to be FORCED to accept this political price. She pivoted on abortion, and decided the Stupak amendment was worth the price to pass the bill.

For the Jamestown Kool-aid brigade of Dems who voted with the Speaker who are from Red States — you will die a hard and agonizing political death of your own making. Whatever rationale you used to vote for this politically and fiscally toxic bill $3 Trillion spending ObamaCare bill — you are wrong and you are TOAST. (Here is the Congressional Budget Office letter on the $3 Trillion in spending number.)

Most Accurate RedStater

One RedStater who was consistent and accurate on the House vote outcome in their comments on my blogs should be “called-out,” to use the President’s term:

Most accurate: bk. I really appreciate (just for the record) those who disagree with my posts and predictions, and am recognizing bk here for his or her insight and accuracy.

In fact, bk, when I wrote the Today’s House Vote, by the Numbers, the implications of the Stupak amendment and deal were simply not part of that post’s calculation, as you immediately both understood and pointed out.

Thank you for all the dissident commentators, as one myself, I appreciate disagreement with my posts.

COMMENTS

  • http://www.jeannie-ology.com jeannieology

    even if it kills them — no pun intended — they will do a late term procedure in the Senate to insure abortion is covered…its their religion leaving it out is like praying to Salt Lake City instead of Mecca.

    www.jeannie-ology.com

    • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

      and I forgot #4 the Bills expressly defer/assign to the DHS Sect. the authority/task of defining what is to be considered “minimum coverage specifications” for ANY/ALL Health-Care plans to be considered “qualified.” The DHS Sect. can/will do it (cover Abortion costs) by Administrative fiat. (Items 1-3 why the Stupak Amend. is BS is elsewhere in this Diary thread) There was simply NO EXCUSE for Republicans to fall for this and should have, at best, stayed in the NV column if not wanting to have the gumption to appropriately Vote NO and honestly explain to constituents why they would NOT vote for the trap the amendment was! It was LAZY/UNPRINCIPLED VOTING!

  • Dan Perrin

    Stupak make it a tank trap in the middle of the road.

    They must keep it in the conference report.

    They have no choice.

    And the pro-abortion groups have their own choice to make: strip members from the conference report to kill the bill, or let it pass and take the restrictions.

  • Dan Perrin

    assuming the bill gets past the Senate, which I doubt

    • penguin2

      Your posts are enlightening and helpful. As the day and evening wore on though, I began to understand the strategy of the Dems, then, as events unfolded, well they got away with it. Now, I’m going to be optimistic once again, given your reasoning.

      Just as well RS had a break yesterday, gave us a day to absorb the results and move onto the next battle. If the Left pulls it off, our fight will be that much harder to undo it. But I’m going to keep in mind, Moe’s words, of “Don’t get mad, get even.”

      Virginia and NJ election results were not little blips on the radar. Across the nation, the GOP took seats of one kind or another from the Dems. I like to think of it as the seething masses rumbling along to volcano strength.

      • Dan Perrin

        the Speaker threw the pro-abortionists under the bus.

        I really did not think that she would:

        a) throw them under the bus; and

        b) they would let her throw them under the bus.

  • farstar99

    Might as well accept it.

    Obama is going to get everything he wants when they actually write this thing and the GOP is once again the Stupid Party.

    • IJB

      If the Dems slip abortion coverage back into the Public Option in conference (which I agree, is likely to be the Dem leadership’s goal), they risk one of two outcomes:

      1) The conference bill losing in either the House or Senate (or both!) as pro-Life Dems (or, rather, pro-abortion Dems who have to “pretend” to be pro-Life because their districts are pro-Life) are forced to vote against to keep their jobs.

      Or,

      2) A bunch of faux “pro-Life” Dems ‘outing’ themselves as pro-aborters on the final conference vote by voting “Yes”, thus assuring all of them (even those in ‘Dem-leaning’ districts) much, much tougher races in 2010 – races many of them will lose as a result.

      I wouldn’t bet against the Dems stripping out Stupak. But, if they do, they ensure their defeat – either on the bill itself, or in an even worse bloodbath at the polls in 2010.

      • crosley

        I absolutely oppose ANY public financing of abortion, but to score a victory on this front seems almost meaningless in my view.

        If we have universal health care, even with strong provisions that ban public funding of abortions, who cares? Abortion is still completely legal, and I really don’t think the cost of abortion is a great burden to someone seeking one. It probably costs less to get a cavity filled, far less than it costs to actually deliver a baby and raise it. I don’t think public funding is going to significantly alter the number of abortions in this country.

        Socialized medicine will be the death of this country and conservatism, to me the abortion funding issue is a minor detail to a much bigger problem.

      • Mayhem

        Winning 2010 is no consolation to losing on this bill. This single piece of legislation = 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028, 2030, and on, and on, and on, and on.

        • IJB

          One reason I don’t agree is that I don’t believe this bill is “unrepealable” – it will take 5-10 years to be fully implemented, and it can be stopped dead before that ever happens if the GOP wins the 2010 elections (esp. if the Senate is forced to use reconciliation to pass it – the latter will make it easier to repeal).

          • Mayhem

            But the precedent is on the side of this entrenching itself in the Federal apparatus.

            I will say, if the Democrats nuke the rules in the Senate, I think the GOP (when they finally achieve a majority in that chamber) will be under tremendous pressure to get rid of the filibuster. In essence, the Democrats are doing that here, and the onus will be on them if and when the GOP does the same. In my book, getting rid of that godawful rule will make us all the better.

            The GOP should be under no obligation to use normal Senate rules to repeal it, if the Democrats used abnormal rules to enact it.

    • penguin2

      Try to understand accepting the facts of a given situation, vs feeling powerless and helpless. We are not going to stay like this. We’ve known this administration and Leftist/Communism means abortion, euthanasia, health care rationing, etc. Yes, the battles are much harder than I thought they would be, but if we just say “they won, we lost” well, we aren’t going to say that.

      Think back to Nov. 2008, for sure it felt like one of the darkest days, yet a year later we are turning the tide. A “forever” blue and purple state just turned back RED.

      Realityunwound wrote a meaningful diary awhile back. I don’t think I am saying we should be filled with unrealistic optimism, but we can work from the a realistic perspective and Never Give Up.

      http://www.redstate.com/realityunwound/2009/10/10/nothing-is-irreversible/

    • Dan Perrin

      First, the historical precedent is that the Dems will fail.

      Second: http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/11/09/newsflash-video-sen-lieberman-i-ct-to-filibuster-health-bill/

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      The governing consensus has been “You can have your Roe v Wade for now, but NO TAXPAYER MONEY FOR ABORTION.” That was the Hyde amendment, and it has stood the test of time in DC.

      The Obama attempt to crack that ran up into the reality that (a) not a single GOP vote for it and (b) 40-50 Democrats oppose taxpayer funded abortions too … and why not, that is is a position opposed byalmost 2-3rds of the voters.

      Don’t forget that one way they got this thing – BARELY – passing was to get the US Catholic bishops off their backs, who took the EXTRAORDINARY position of expressing prolife concerns about the bill.

      Stupak + 64 pro-lifers+ USCCB = Game over for the assault on the Hyde amendment.

      This is why I DONT think the GOP was wrong to support the Stupak amendment. A) It was the right principle, and they have established the Hyde/Stupak position is the majority one in the House, even with this leftist leaning House. B) Stopping Stupak could have resulted in a bill that was weaker on pro-life but passed anyway (eg Ellsworth was a weaker version of same), and that would have made the GOP look even more foolish for not ‘improving’ the bill when they had a chance.

      It may be the Dem leader’s goal to fund abortions in ObamalosiCare, but the reality is that they DONT HAVE THE VOTES to destroy healthcare AND have taxpayer funded abortions all in one bill.

      The fact that they threw THE abortion agenda under the bus, AND caved on the “Medicare+5″ proggie agenda, AND had to buy off AARP and AMA and a host of other buyoffs (just like the pork in cap-and-trade), and after all that wheeling and dealing, still only got 220 … phew … WEAK WEAK win. Yes, a win is a win, but this is a real weak one.

      They managed to get to the point this saturday where cap-and-trade was in June.

      Victory? Pyhrric.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    WHY did the House GOP vote for the Stupak amendment?

    They voted something like 174-1 in favor of it, along with what I presume were the staunch blue dogs, enabling it to win.

    Since the PRIME FRACKING DIRECTIVE was to stop the bill, why didn’t the GOP vote AGAINST the amendment, ensuring its defeat, and thus ensuring the bill’s defeat?

    I realize what the official answer is : that the GOP could not find itself voting against an anti-abortion amendment. Even if they recognize it as a Trojan Horse.

    But I’m sorry, this is war, this ain’t tea and crumpets. Those people are stupid morons, and should have their arses kicked for being that stupid.

    • Dan Perrin

      a) their members would balk at voting against or present on the abortion restrictions and they would likely be embarrassed by losing the vote anyway — witness Shadegg’s sole present vote;

      b) while the short term vote to pass the legislation hurt, the Dems who voted for it on final passage will get hurt more;

      c) the Speaker was really just kicking the can down the road, she must keep the restrictions in conference, if it gets to that point, and her problem switches from pro-life Dems to pro-abortion Dems, which the GOP leaders do not think she will hold as the pro-abortion groups start to spin-up after this massive defeat;

      and,

      d) there are a whole number of House GOP members who think this will die in the Senate, and the Speaker just made her members walk the plank for nothing.

      • Dan Perrin

        http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/11/09/putting-the-health-care-hurt-on-the-dems/

        • Dan Perrin

          the first since the bill passed the House:

          http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/11/09/first-likely-voter-poll-since-house-passes-3-trillion-health-spending-bill/

      • E Pluribus Unum

        Thanks Dan, and please understand – I am not directing any wrath at you – you are just the very able, well-connected messenger, after all.

        I see that the Dems have a problem with final passage when the Stupak amendment is inevitably stripped out.

        But I still call “stupid” on the House GOP. Here’s my math:

        (1) We had a chance to kill it DEAD. Here. Now. To quote the mentally diminutive CoS Rahm Emanuel – DEAD, DEAD, DEAD, DEAD, DEAD, DEAD, DEAD, DEAD. Now, we are just using Rudy Giuliani’s Florida strategy, hoping and praying we can stop it after it has a full head of steam by passing the Senate.

        (2) The Dems will do reconciliation with no Republicans in the room. The Stupak amendment will possibly NOT be actually stripped out – it will be nullified elsewhere, buried somewhere in the 2000 pages. They will print copies of the bill 2 hours before voting (if at all), and neither the Repubs nor blue dogs will know the fate of the Stupak amendment before voting. Remember these are Democrats, and they don’t think twice about lying to you, to me, and to their own.

        (3) The Repubs overestimate the character of anti-abortion Democrats. Like any Democrat, they have their price.

        • crosley

          Three votes in the House would have flipped had the abortion funding been in place, and the bill would have probably died right there.

          Abortion funding will inevitably follow any type of universal health care, whether it’s in the final bill or in later supplemental bills.

          Count on it.

        • Illinicon

          who other wise might have been a no vote, would have voted for the bill if the GOP had voted to block the Stupak admendment out of partisan spite. Also, I doubt Reid will use reconcilation because jamming an unpopluar bill down the country’s throat will be the only we can repeal it when we get back in power, which if they do this in 2013 we very likely could have the types of majorities in congress they do now and the White House. I do think think they would trade passing the bill for losing in 2010 and 2012 but only if the bill stays intact because the battle between the statist and the invidualist turns into a battle fought on a 100-yard field to a 50 yard field with our side of it being elimnated to the populce’s need on the government if the this thing passes.

    • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

      Duplicity Votes – Setting up Duplicity Votes – the have it both way Game Politicians play to be able to say anything during Campaigns. For Democrats it’s CINO/PLINO coverage.

      gives them PRO-LIFE bonafides, in their mind, and they wouldn’t want to have to actually explain, engage, educate, constituents, how/why it was just a DODGE Amendment. More below in “The Stupid (er… Stupak) Amendment boondoggle” comment….

    • aesthete

      I have no words for how stupid of a calculation that was. All of the (R)s should have voted present, in honor of Pres. Obama’s prodigious record in the Senate, and their explanation should have been that a) the bill can be stripped in reconciliation, which won’t involve a single R, and that b) they have had no input on the bill so far, and that they shouldn’t have any now in the debate over abortion funding for the *Democrat* health care bill.

    • Mayhem

      Haven’t you been say that the bill’s death would come in the House and not the Senate? I’m just wondering what your thinking is now that it has passed the House.

    • GregInFla

      and I don’t see the military contingent leaving the GOP side. Heck, Obama voted against the increase in the minimum wage in 2007 and still got elected by the libs.

  • crosley

    The Stupak amendment should have been voted down by Republicans. Any pro-life groups that would be outraged are being ridiculous.

    If government is going to be responsible for healthcare for ALL americans, and abortion is considered a constitutional right (a tragedy, but it’s true), it’s only a matter of time before the two are merged.

    If you truly want to make sure public financing of abortions never occurs, your best bet is to kill universal health care, not putting in silly amendments to a universal health care bill that can easily be changed later.

    Why the Republican leadership and pro-life groups were too stupid to understand that is beyond me.

    • bs

      I saw an email with a quote from Boehner that said they figured there were Blue Dogs that would have voted for it whether or not it had Stupak included. They just got some extra cover from it.

      I don’t think Pelosi would have planned to bring the bill to the floor unless she was dead certain it would pass, Stupak or no.

      Beating up pro-lifers over this is counterproductive. They are the core of our core. Read Erick’s “Divided We Fall” diary on the FP from this morning.

      Dan’s point about the vote on the conference report is the key. If Stupak gets stripped, we’ll know one way or the other when the reconciled bill comes to vote in the House.

      • crosley

        I’m not saying we should throw the pro-life crowd overboard, it’s just a stupid tactical mistake.

        I want to make sure abortion’s are NOT funded with public money. The best way to insure that is to kill universal health care. I think the pro-life groups would “get over it” if Republicans used this tactic.

        • bs

          and the more I read about this and discuss it with well-respected and well-connected folks, I agree with the Standard.

          Read it here

          • crosley

            and I disagree with the conclusions. The thrust of their argument would have been that it would have been a mean trick to play on blue dog Democrats who were voting their conscience. Sorry, I really don’t care. I want to do everything in my power to defeat these so called conservative Democrats and replace them with conservative Republicans.

            I think having taxpayer funded abortions would have easily flipped 3 votes on the Democrat side. Red state democrats would have known that would have been an instant career-ender, and voted against it. Dan Perrin said himself in this article, “Had Rep. Stupak?s amendment failed, the House bill would have failed.” That’s a risk worth taking a thousand time over.

            Let’s play devil’s advocate and say it didn’t turn a single vote (I have a huge problem buying that). These vulnerable Democrats would then be on the record of having supported taxpayer funded abortions, and many would have been wiped out in the next midterm election. Talk about a gift for their Republican challengers, the ads practically write themselves.

            If even the worst case scenario, universal health care passes with publicly funded abortions (which is going to happen eventually if universal health care is the law of the land), you would have a Dem wipeout in this country for 2010.

            It was a win-win for Republicans to vote “present” on the Stupak amendment, and the Republicans blew it

            They don’t call us the stupid party for nothing.

    • Dan Perrin

      comment above

  • izoneguy

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/66969-senior-dem-confident-stupak-amendment-will-be-stripped

    • Dan Perrin

      crack

      • izoneguy

        • Dan Perrin

          We just had a vote, days ago, that 64 Democrats and every Republican except one voting present, joined in on, to create ABORTION RESTRICTIONS in the health bill, and the pro-abortionist house Dems are now saying they will strip it in conference and it will win?

          UH, no.

          The same people now pounding Stupak will be cheering him for killing the conference report, if the leadership strips the Stupak amendment.

          Speaker Pelosi is between a rock and a hard place.

          • bk

            Remind me – Which party is divided?

          • Dan Perrin

            In a move that will intensify the coming war over how to treat abortion in the health care bill, more than three dozen House Dems have signed a letter to Nancy Pelosi firmly pledging to vote against the bill if it contains an anti-abortion amendment.

            A source sends over a working copy of the letter without the signatories, and the source says it currently bears the signatures of 41 House Dems. They?re all vowing to vote No on a bill if it contains the Stupak amendment ? enough to sink the bill:

            As Members of Congress we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women?s access to reproductive health services.
            http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/obtained-in-letter-to-pelosi-41-house-dems-pledge-to-vote-against-bill-with-abortion-amendment/

            The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women?s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women?s right to choose any further than current law.

            That?s unequivocal, with no wiggle room. The Washington Post reported this morning that Rep. Diana DeGette had collected 40 signatures vowing a No vote, without noting the language of their vow or how this would be communicated.

          • IJB

            There is NO way any Leftie Dem would vote against a final bill that effectively contains Single Payer simply over abortion coverage. Even the Loony Left isn’t that stupid!

            This is their one and *only* chance to get Single Payer passed – they’ll happily throw NARAL and Emily’s List under the bus to get that done.

            And I’m talking about Lynn Woolsey types. The Left will vote for this, Stupak or no. I don’t care what their stupid letter claims.

          • itrytobenice

            If abortion funding is cut out now, I promise you it will go back in. Either in the next bill, or the next, or the next. Once the camel’s nose is under the tent, we are *screwed.*

            We will be stuck with gov’t health care (think VA) and it will fund every legal procedure, of which abortion is definitely one.

          • crosley

            There’s going to be conservatives strutting around like it’s some great victory when universal health care passes and the final bill has abortion funding stripped.

            If I was a liberal, I would consider that a huge victory for my side, and would be laughing at conservatives for thinking it was a huge victory for them after winning the greater war.

          • aesthete

            He’s in the dictionary next to Russ Fiengold and Ted Kennedy, in case anyone has difficulty finding him.

          • GregInFla

            at least 2 Repubicans voting Yea. Guarandarnteed.

          • Mayhem

            If it is in the conference report, then what hope is there? It seems to me that the pro-aborts are the type of people who want universal healthcare more than they want abortion. Why? Because they view the former as a means to the latter. They’ll just take their lumps now, knowing that eventually they’ll turn into limes.

            I don’t see how Stupak in the final report = defeat for the bill, if indeed, that is what you are saying.

    • bk

      “The amendment, offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), won the support of Republicans and some centrist Democrats in the House. The amendment was allowed a vote in a concession to Stupak and other pro-life Democrats who had threatened to fell the House bill unless language on federal support for pregnancy termination was clarified.”

      “some” centrist Democrats? SOME? GMAB. Didn’t 25% of the Democrats vote for Stupak?

  • izoneguy

    by almost anymeans possible……..

    Short of lying & violence.

    These people are evil and do not represent the American public any longer.

    If the NRCC wants to use it’s money (what they have left) – they need to call out the whole democratic party and the liars that lead this pack of
    cut throat pirates.

    • Dan Perrin

      http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/with_this_victory_dems_might_as_tGJPDn8DVfjGPNDklfi0YN

      • izoneguy

        The dems are in de-nile…..

        I had a lib friend yesterday saying the the country was final going in the right direction…..

        I said: “Please let me get that on the record, I will ask your opinion in 10 years”……

        This is the plan – slowly creep into socialism and BAM…..
        When the time is right the socialists will slam the door…..

        That is when the blood will start flowing.

  • bk

    I always enjoy reading your analysis and getting your insight. At the time you were predicting the downfall, it looked like the strongest abortion choice (no pun intended) that would be allowed a vote was Ellsworth, and since Nancy’s clan obviously had the vote-whipping/counting down pat, it’s pretty clear in retrospect that it would have failed had Ellsworth been the only abortion option. She would never have allowed Stupak on the floor unless it was the only way to get the thing passed.

    So now the bar is set. If Stupak gets watered down in conference, as is almost guaranteed to happen, they surely lose Cao. Could they lose two other (alleged) pro-life Dems in that case? With all the stink he made, you’d certainly think they’d lose Stupak. If so, would he get no others to flip with him?

    Then again, perhaps the Senate will water down the cost side and some who voted no on that basis could switch to yes, so anything’s still possible.

    My prediction was that something would end up on Obama’s desk, so I’m not quite right yet and I hope I never am.

    • Dan Perrin

      I think it will die

      • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

        it might still be possible. Most Democrats appear to be bold enough to be willing to chance it and deliver something/anything in the name of Liberal Incremental-ism but would prefer to grab the full monty if they can!!!

        • IJB

          So I doubt the Dems are even using it.

          Yeah, sure they won it.

          But they won a seat that’s theirs almost no matter what by a measely 10%, when the normal margin should have been at least 20-25% in their favor. There’s no way to put 10% swing *against you* in a positive light!

          If the Dems are trying to console themselves based on CA-10, they are cocooning, BIG TIME. :)

          (NY-23, OTOH, is another matter…)

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    just proves, IMO, my whole CINOs/PLINOs, and Blue-Dogs contention. The Stupak Amendment just provided cover for them to vote for the POS which should never have happened, because….
    1- (supposedly) Removing Abortion funding from it does NOT make the rest of the Bill ‘GOOD’ – as if the Abortion funding was/is the only “BAD’ thing in it!
    2- Duplicity Votes – Setting up Duplicity Votes – the have it both way Game Politicians play to be able to say anything during Campaigns
    3- Abortion funding WILL STILL OCCUR — Liberals/Democrats ALWAYS consider themselves ABOVE THE LAW and ignore them when convenient to their causes….
    3A- The “Abortion funding exclusion” will NOT survive the Conference/Consolidation ‘compromise’ process when it comes time to join in Conference/Committee the House and Senate Bills
    3B- Liberal bureaucrats will still pay for ABORTIONS paying for them billed as something like a generic “Pregnancy Services” term – or the like BS (as discussed in one of the Townhalls primers: here, here, here, here, here, and HC issues summary here, don’t recall off-hand which one)
    3C- If they ALLOW it to survive into the Final Bill, to again provide cover for CINOs/PLINOs, and Blue-Dogs Democrats (and maybe a few Republicans) to vote for it under Pro-Life grounds (and again, see #1), it will be stripped on a Saturday Late night, or reversed by language stuffed into the middle of some other Bill, otherwise removed undercover of the night, at a later date. Haven’t people learned anything?!?!? LIBERAL INCREMENTAL-ISM at its most obvious yet again!!!!

    as a whole aside from the HC Bill, just about Abortion in general….
    Kathy Ireland/Abortion- Kathy Ireland: best anti-abortion comments ever made and more on her words here

    • izoneguy

      it would have been something else…..

      At a certain point – the Republicans need to walk out of the House & Senate and just gridlock the process.

      It is now a war. The Socialists are feeling strong and they will go for it….just watch.

      • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

        IMNSHO….. They didn’t have to vote against it, they could have just NOT VOTED, at least, for the Stupak DODGE! But, yes, we all know they would have come up with some other PAYOFF to CINOs/PLINOs, and Pavlovian-Blue-Dogs Democrats. But, again, Republicans who should know better should not be participating in the COVER (which is both our points) for this crap to further the HC and/or any other LIBERAL INCREMENTAL-ISM garbage!

      • The_Gadfly

        in order to do that, Republicans need to be on the floor. I believe the Dems otherwise have sufficient numbers to constitute a quorum.

        I think the Republicans should fire the warning shot ASAP: start requiring recorded votes to proceed with all that after hours speechifying that gets recorded for members promo tapes. Yet, they’ll take the hit too, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the public didn’t respond positively to it in the long run.

  • bs
    • izoneguy

      for the amusement of the left.

      You cannot trust these people. Period.

      • bs
    • Dan Perrin

      very interesting

      AHHHH

      The rock and the hard place is here.

      Who do you believe, the 41 Dems threatening to vote NO, or the 64 who voted for the restrictions in one the most watched house votes in recent history.

      HMMM

      • bs
    • IJB

      Trust me on this – those Lefties will vote for the final bill, Stupak or no.

      • bk

        Though they sure didn’t leave any wiggle rooms between themselves and honesty (not that that’s anything new for a lefty).

      • bs
  • bk

    What current law are they talking about?

    It needs to match the Hyde amendment, which Stupak more or less does, correct? The Hyde amendment is part of current law. :-)

    In any case I think they’re lying and will vote for whatever comes back. They are providing cover for the pro-life Dems to switch to NAY if it gets stripped, since they would say it passed fair and square by a wide margin, and if a few Dems can override it then screw ‘em and they can start the whole process over.

    Now it’s time for the press to write some more articles about how the GOP is divided because Cao voted aye Saturday. heh heh

    • bk

      It never fails that I do that when trying to reply to the last comment in the thread. Sorry about that.

    • Menlo

      Since the only kind of insurance available will be insurance that the government funds, it will prohibit any available policy from covering abortion unless a woman chooses to purchase an abortion rider. The pro-abortion groups are playing on that to say it bans “private coverage” of abortion.

      But this is what happens when the federal government takes over a whole industry. Because government plans are administered by corporations, they can call it “private.”

      If their concerns were serious, they would not be seeking to prohibit private insurance in all but name.

      I don’t buy into the “giving cover” argument for two reasons. Besides the fact that the cover will be gone for those who vote for a final version without the amendment, such a vote is a matter of principle and not politics. I can guarantee you that not a single percent of voters would base their votes on this. In fact only a small percentage will even base their vote on the bill itself. The polls are irrelevant when they are on matters no one considers at the voting booth. I doubt many voters will even know anything but the party ID and name of their representative, if that much.

      However, given that the Senate bill will not be similar and that the Senate lacks a majority for Stupak (it is far more pro-abortion than the House), this is likely not

      • Menlo

        Didn’t finish the last sentence. I meant this is not likely to be a concern because I believe other disputes are more likely to stop the bill if it has any hope of being stopped.

  • izoneguy

    Why are people threatened with jail time for not participating?

    One sure way to RECEIVE healthcare….
    Don’t pay – go to jail and receive all the FREE medical care you need!!! – Free food also!!!

    • Dan Perrin

      thanks for posting it

    • redneck_hippie

      I just wish he were the one interested in running for Obama’s old seat instead of Kirk. Kirk’s Dem opponent, BTW is running an attack ad against Kirk for trying to get Palin’s endorsement. Also, now that there is a big push to keep the national GOP fundraising arms out of primaries, could this be bad news for Mr. Kirk, who I am quite sure counts on establishment backing.

    • aminutemanconservative

      He was a slaveholder, a rapist, a coward when it came to putting his own life on the line to defend his state, a profligate spendthrift and so messsed up his life that his belongings, including his slaves, had to be auctioned off just to pay his debts. btw, he also wroite about the dangers of religous tests for politicians in the VA Statute of Religious Freedom and you he is quoted on this site everyday as if his briolliant wpords, just words, make up for his terribly led life.

      • itrytobenice

        That whole founding father, Declaration of Independence, President of the United States…that was just a fluke.

        He accomplished more before he was 40 than you will in your entire life. Go cry.

      • E Pluribus Unum

        Look pal, I don’t know if you’re just a concern troll , or if you’re an actual conservative with major hang-ups about Thomas Jefferson. But you’re gonna need to unbunch your underwear if you expect to be heard at a grown-up site for conservatives. Let’s get a couple of things straight:

        • Jefferson is not universally loved and adored at RedState – actually for reasons other than your list of sins, but because he ran more on emotion than on brains, and because of that little “wall of separation between church and state” that commie judges have used to subvert the Constitution. Regardless, I doubt very seriously he is quoted on this site daily, as you say. He’s WAY down the list of favorite Founding Fathers around here.
        • That said, the man was brilliant when he was on. Should we refrain from using brilliant quotes because a man’s personal life (and money management! Holy cow!) does not suit us? You do know that FDR was an adulterer his whole adult life with the full knowledge of his wife, right? And Kennedy? And Clinton?
        • Coward? Ridiculous. That is a lie.
  • reallyfive

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/Weblogs/TWSFP/TWSFPView.asp#13928

    • Dan Perrin

      reading

  • LibRick

    will likely remain intact for the reasons you stated. To strip it out completely dooms an already somewhat doomed bill.

    I did a quick Google search and found the average early term abortion only costs about $500.00. That’s not much more than the annual cost of birth control pills and, in many current health plans, that figure doesn’t even reach the deductible. So, to deny federal funding won’t really change a thing regarding the frequency of abortion.

    What the amendment does do, as you articulated, is provide additional codified evidence of a strong pro-life consensus. In the big picture, this will help in future SCOTUS fights on the issue. Maybe that’s why the Republicans voted for it.

  • Dan Perrin

    and one the Dem cannot undo, unless they kill their health care bill

    • Mayhem

      At this point in the game, I think we have to hope that the Senate does not include Stupak language in their bill. Having two clashing bills before conference will only cause more dissension and more tears in the thin liberal coalition in Congress.

    • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

      This was ZERO victory for innocents (unborn)… It DOES NOT prevent, stop, limit, exclude, Abortions but just stops us from paying for them (which we all know that is a lie from the get-go too). Don’t help the Democrats try and make their DISTORTION case about the Stupak Amendment somehow being an affront to their ability to kill children (Abortion itself)!

  • passerby825

    I was going to ask this yesterday, but couldn’t (due to being newly registered), but where is that 3 trillion dollar report coming from? I skimmed over the CBO report, but didn’t see anything about the bill being 3 trillion dollars.

    “The estimate includes a projected net cost of $891 billion over 10 years for the proposed
    expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of
    $1,052 billion in subsidies provided through the exchanges (and related spending),
    increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children?s Health Insurance Program (CHIP),
    and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $167 billion in
    collections of penalties paid by individuals and employers. On balance, other effects on
    revenues and outlays associated with the coverage provisions add $6 billion to their total
    cost.”

    While no chump change, 891billion =/= 3 trillion, but, like I said, I didn’t read it thoroughly, so if someone could point me to where in the report that number is coming from. Thanks

    • Dan Perrin

      http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2009/11/07/cbo-new-house-health-bill-spending-estimate-3-trillion-over-10-years/

      • passerby825

        but he cites the CBO, and I didn’t see that in the CBO’s report.

    • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

      Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion ? and most of the new spending doesn?t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.

      To simplify what the link says, there are 2 things: 1. CBO includes the tax costs, but not all mandate costs to businesses and people now forced at gunpoint to buy ‘approved’ health insurance 2. $3 trillion is the 10-year cost when the program is fully implemented… the lower numbers are hiding costs because program doesnt kick in for a few years.

      • passerby825

        Sen. Judd Gregg (the Ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee) cited a CBO report, but, like I said, I see no number even close to 3 trillion in the CBO report.

  • aminutemanconservative

    lets say tomorrow the pro life lobby woke up with the power to right then Federal laws as they want. I would assume the law would make abortions illegal. Can someone tell me what exactly a law that makes abortion illegal would look like? I am most interested in how it would be enforced with regards to 2 points 1) How would the Fed know a woman had an abortion and not a miscatrriage and how would a woman who leaves the country pregnant and comes back not pregnant be judged as to whether she had an abortion?

    For me such laws don’t make any sense if the goal is to actually eliminate abortions. I think the more realistic approach is single payer healthcare including free contraceptioin and fed investments in improving the effectiveness of contraception.

    Or else you end up like like Texas…very high murder rates despite having the highest execution rates in the country.

    • The_Gadfly
      • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

        See his rabid attack on Jefferson a few minutes later.

        • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth
          • The_Gadfly

            My commenting history is pretty well established at this point, and I don’t think any of the admins or regular posters would have thought you were referring to me.

    • pilgrim
    • E Pluribus Unum

      Prior to 1973, many states had abortion as illegal. However those statutes looked, THAT is how it would look. Are you utterly unaware that abortion was already illegal for many years in most states?

      This police-state scenario you construct is projection. That’s the kind of thing that gives Democrats a happy-happy moment with the little Democrat in their pants.

    • Leopard1996

      Abortion always has to be an option, no ifs ands or buts about it. In a single payer system, at somepoint someone will probably wind up forcing someone to have an abortion to keep the program sustainable.

  • The_Gadfly

    The verbal back and forth is intended for the rubes and will have no consequences in the bill. From here out, Comrade Pelosi takes a page from The Big 0′s book and only pays lip service to the pro-abort lobbies. They counted the votes, decided they couldn’t win, and opted for their fall back position: have the courts declare it unconstitutional to not fund abortion. It is where they first won a victory they were unable to win in the legislature, and it is where they will return to win again.

    Hopefully they will lose in the Senate, but I always thought we stood a better chance of winning in the House despite the fact that the Speaker of the House has more rules leverage than her counterpart in the Senate. In the House, every member faces election every year. The Blue dogs know they have to face voters in 2010. In the Senate, only 1/3 of them are up in a given election cycle. Four years or six is an eternity in politics, and Senators use that to their advantage, voting for the unpopular stuff when they are safe, and then tacking back as election time approaches.

    Yes, it is nice that Lieberman is currently opposed and the Dems are accusing him of being a wholly owned subsidiary of The Hartford. This would be one of those rare occasions on which I wish that were true, because if it were, I’d know I could count on him to be implacably opposed until the bill dies. But he’s not, and I therefore expect him to fold like he has so many times before. Something along the lines of Stupak only for his concerns instead, and still getting us to government controlled health care. Just because the public option (communism) is the easiest way to control health care, doesn’t mean it is the only way to do it. There could also be national regulations forcing people to buy insurance and establishing what options private insurers could sell (fascism). Just remember, you can buy any insurance policy you want to and from any of the private companies, just so long as it comes with a Government Approved ™ logo and comes in black.

    I pray you are correct Dan, but I don’t think you are.

    • Dan Perrin

      that the Dems will attempt an end around in the courts.

      Will check on it and get back to you.

      • Dan Perrin

        especially the courts question

      • Leopard1996

        And get the mandatory coverage thing pulled as well.

    • Menlo

      Since the 70s, all federal courts including the Supreme Court have many times accepted the exemption of abortion funding and even the exemption from programs that receive federal funding. That’s what the Hyde Amendment and amendments to other federal health programs have done.

      In addition, some states currently bar even private insurance from covering abortion without the purchase of a rider.

      It’s really irrelevant now since it will almost certainly be removed from the final bill and replaced with an accounting gimmick along the lines of the Capps Amendment.

      • The_Gadfly

        The fact that the new health care reform will, changes the equation. Oh the charade of “competition” might last for a decade at most, but once that decade is over, government will be the only insurance option, and at that point SCOTUS will rule it must cover abortion.

        My timeline here isn’t the next quarter or the next election cycle; it’s the final endgame.

        • Menlo

          This bill does not “effectively outlaw abortion,” not even close. It just says insurance can’t pay for it. As I said above, there are states where no insurance can cover abortion without a rider. Abortions are done in those states routinely.

          Outside of states that fund abortion, 98 percent of women pay the full cost themselves, a flat fee that is generally advertised.

          Whether newly composed courts decades from now will overrule decades of many explicit precedents is another question. I am reminded of Harry Blackmun’s “let them eat cake” dissent when they ruled in favor of the Hyde Amendment.

      • Dan Perrin

        If the courts argued that the government had to fund abortion rights, I’d petition for funding of my Second Amendment rights.

        More ammo, pls.

  • restofva

    Would it be the case that the dems could “water-down” their version enough to buy 60 and then bring it out of conference in full lib mode only needing 51 when it gets out?
    I’m unclear on how some of these things work.

    • bk

      He has said for weeks that he would pass it with 51 votes if that’s what he’s “forced” to do. Presumably that’s a bluff, because I suspect the GOP would completely shut down the Senate, where one person can make life miserable for everyone.

      So assuming that’s not the case, there are two ways it can work. I got part of this from reading a link someone posted here – I thought that bills always went to conference, but not necessarily. I’m not 100% sure I’ve got all this correct, but someone can correct whatever I mess up. I believe that the GOP in the Senate can filibuster at any point in either chain.

      Option 1 – Conference. House passes bill. Senate passes different bill. It ends up in conference committee. The idea is they keep what both wanted and negotiate the rest, but in reality they can do whatever they want to some extent. Committee report comes out and that bill is debated in each house but can’t be amended. (It’s at this point that I believe Lieberman has threatened to filibuster.) It gets an up or down vote (unless filibustered) and if both pass it, it goes to the President. If it fails in either, then it’s dead.

      Option 2 – ping-pong. House passes bill. Senate drops own bill and takes up House bill. If they pass it as is, then it goes to the president. If it gets amended, the amended version goes back to House. They can in turn amend it and send it back, and so on. Eventually one doesn’t add any more amendments and then it either passes and goes to the president or fails and is dead. It never goes to a conference committee in this scenario.

      • restofva

        “The idea is they keep what both wanted and negotiate the rest, but in reality they can do whatever they want to some extent.”
        There was something in the stimulus if I remember correctly (may have been Harry’s train) that had 2 different dollar figures going in then came out with a 3rd number higher than both of the others.

      • Dan Perrin

        but it is pretty clear that the last thing either house wants is to vote on these bills repeatedly.

        The cost is too high politically.

        Furthermore, there are huge difference in the House and Senate bills, like the taxes on individuals vs. taxes on health plans in the Senate bill that cannot be reconciled.

    • Menlo

      HR 3200 and the Baucus bill (and I think even the House bill before Stupak) already contained a fake amendment that would have been no more than an accounting gimmick. This provision had unanimous approval from the pro-abortion side in the committees.

  • David123

    1. Blue Dogs vote yes for Pelosi-care now and preclude a primary challenge from their left even happening.

    2. Bill comes back after reconciliation with some changes, and a lot closer to the general election.

    3. Blue Dogs vote against the modified reconcillation bill to give themselves better chances in the general election. They say their vote change is because of the differences between original Pelosi-care and reconcilliation Pelosi-care. Any change in the bill gives them an excuse to change their vote whether the change actually bothers them or not.

    • Dan Perrin

      reconciliation in the Senate.

      If they were going to try that, they would have already.

      They can’t because of Democratic opposition to using reconciliation for health care reform.

      The need 60 votes.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    1. Calling for the vote now, after NJ and VA, was all about *NOT* letting the elections hurt their agenda momentum.

    2. Their base was clamoring for government-run plan in the bill (aka ‘public option’). This placates them.

    3. Adjourning this year without addressing healthcare would leave it into the next year, dangerous time.

    • izoneguy

      as a “Now & Never” proposition.

      She is just like Obama….it is all about her.

      • Dan Perrin

        and Congress’ poll numbers.

        Focusing on health care is going to keep driving DEM numbers down and at some point they will give up.

        • Cheryl

          and it’s almost like they have some grand plan and expectation that they can find the public’s approval again, so just run with it. Do they have reason to believe this?

  • leehedstrom

    It seems that Democrats really don’t care whether the healthcare bill will hurt them. They think thet will be able to overcome any obstacle to their reelection. Since we are all stupid and will follow them whereever they lead, because we aren’t smart enough to think on our own, they can do whatever they want. They have a grand plan, and that plan is to create a system wherein they control everyone and everything.