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!

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.

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.

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/

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/

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.

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.

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….

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.

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.

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.

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.

comment above

crack

“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?

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

I think it will die

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.

for the amusement of the left.

You cannot trust these people. Period.

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

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

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

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

thanks for posting it

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.

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.

reading

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.

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)!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Will check on it and get back to you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

as a “Now & Never” proposition.

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