« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Waxman Forces Re-Vote to Ensure Coverage for Taxpayer-Subsidized Abortion Remains in Health Care Bill

Yesterday afternoon, House Energy and Commerce Committee member Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) proposed an amendment to the House health care overhaul bill to allow for federal funding of elective abortion coverage for those enrolled in the “public option,” to mandate that every regional Health Insurance Exchange contain at least one private insurance plan that offers abortion coverage, and to permit taxpayer subsidies of those private insurance plans and others that cover elective abortion.

The Capps amendment passed 30-28, with E&C Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Capps, and 28 other Democrats voting in favor of mandating (and allowing taxpayer funding to be used to subsidize) abortion coverage.

Taxpayer dollars do not currently pay for, or subsidize, insurance plans that cover elective abortion services. This amendment, if the health overhaul bill to which it is attached is passed and signed into law, would alter that policy, using the tax dollars of every American – pro-life or pro-choice – to subsidize abortion coverage (and, by extension, abortion services).

Late last night, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) responded to the Capps amendment’s passage by proposing an amendment of his own. Pitts’s proposal would have prohibited the federal government from requiring any insurance plan — including the “public option” — to provide coverage for abortion (with the three chief exception of rape, incest, and life of the mother).

E&C passed the Pitts amendment by a 31-27 vote, with Waxman among the “Yea” votes. However, after the votes were in and the amendment passed, Waxman decided he wanted to change his vote, and so brought the amendment back up for “reconsideration” and a re-vote.

The second time around, Waxman voted against the amendment to prevent abortion coverage from being mandated in health insurance plans. He also convinced Blue Dog Democrat Bart Gordon (D-TN) to switch his vote from Yea to Nay, and pulled conflicted Blue Dog Zack Space (D-OH), who had managed to sit out the first round of voting, back into the debate. Space, who voted in favor of the Capps amendment earlier yesterday afternoon, succumbed to pressure from Waxman and cast his vote against the Pitts measure.

The result was a 30-29 defeat of the measure — a reversal of the initial outcome, and the Democratic preservation a health care overhaul bill that not only allows, but mandates, taxpayer-funded abortion coverage and services.

COMMENTS

  • johnt

    If not there should be !

  • izoneguy

  • bk

     

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      it will be removed from a compromise bill that will destroy America as we know it while not funding abortions. The removal of this provision will be used as a fake fix excuse to vote for it.

      • squeek71

        I have refrained from sending many of the prolife petitions I have received regarding this bill because, while that is a huge issue for me, I do not want my congress critters to think that is my only concern. I have written my own emails in which I address abortion, the public option, etc. There are way too many poison pills in the bill to just focus on one of them. I think the blue dogs will probably look for any excuse to pass it and make Pelosi and Obama happy. I don’t want a watered down version passing that will just pave the way for socialsim in more baby steps to come. What a mess this is!

        • randy streu

          they’ll never find time to form one anyway.

          this is all about audience. Some people are going to be chiefly concerned about abortion — we need to make sure we reach them. For others, some of the “end of life” care provisions are going to be very disconcerting, if they know about them. So we need to make sure they do.

          Point is, everyone focuses, and that’s not really such a bad thing.

  • Bob_Frazier

    Will the national republicans have the courage to bring up the abortion issue at all in regards to the health care debate?

    Seven months into the term of the most radical extremist ever to hold the presidency, there are still signs everywhere that the republican party leadership still does not get it.

    • izoneguy

      The Republicans party leadership will be running for the hills.
      Many, many republicans will also find themselves in trouble unless they take a strong stand against Obama and his destructive Marxist policies.

  • muffin

    Feinstein’s constituents were sitting in her conference room waiting to speak with her about health care. These constituents are seniors. What to do, what to do?? Call the police to have them removed:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/07/30/state/n184320D61.DTL

  • Michael Dugas

    It will be interesting, and I personally think disheartening, to see the response, and the votes, of Christian, Catholic and Muslim politicians and voters. To choose to vote for legislation where tax dollars will be used to end the lives of unborn human beings may be damning for a lot longer than the span of their natural lives.
    And as most religions have a “Judgment” day or Moment in them, to choose to vote for taking life may not sit so well with their Makers when they are brought to be weighed. How many death’s will each vote carry when their ticket is punched? Wouldn’t want it to be me.
    Or maybe to many, a regrettable many, religion has just become a merit badge to list along with other self serving accomplishments on their resumes while Government, State and control of others has become their real ” tangible” Deity.

    • JHancock

      are just social action committees that like to sing on Sundays from what I’ve seen. Moral relativism has so clouded many Christians judgment that lots of Churches will no longer stand against immorality of any kind, be it abortion, pre-marital sex, divorce, extramarital affairs, homosexuality, or even prostitution. Their requirement for being a good Christian is that you “care” about others. In short they’ve got the “love” part of the Christian message, but have thrown “truth” and “righteousness” under the bus.

  • Joe_Cor

    if a way could be found to get Catholic Bishops’ attention drawn to this outrage. Their inclination seems always to support big, massive government programs. And they seemed to go out of their way to avoid emphasizing abortion in the last election. But if they could be made aware of what’s going on here, maybe, perhaps, they might be inclinded to mobilize Catholic laity against this abomination.

  • melvinwinter

    http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/07/democrats-cite-health-care-cost-savings.html

  • gonzo55

    … and the Eichmanns in Congress and the administration claim to be merely technocrats, not responsible for the millions of lives that will be lost in the gas ovens of Obamacare.

    I usually just think giving my money to the government is equivalent to throwing it down the toilet. Now there literally will be blood on my hands every time a human life is murdered. This is NOT a representative government!

  • red4ever

    Sen. Dodd diagnosed with prostate cancer. Now, I don’t wish death on most people. I hope Sen. Dodd is okay. However, I notice he is getting emergency surgery over the August recess. Must be nice to have that special healthcare that you can get treated immediately. Especially nice, if under his own plan, if he were not a Senator he would not even be on the waiting list for treatment. He would be counseled about end of life decisions since he is old and useless, then sent off with some pain meds to await the end.

    • red4ever

      Do you think God is sending a message about government run healthcare with all these Democratic senators getting sick?

  • restofva

    Maybe I’ve misunderstood something, but why would Waxman have voted for the Pitt’s amendment to begin with, especially after having already voted for the Capps’ amendment?

    • bk

      So when it was going to fail, he would have switched his vote so he could keep his plan alive after working over a couple more members.

      You see this in the entire Senate when something the Majority Leader wants is failing on a close vote. He’ll switch his vote to nay so he can bring it up again later.

      These two cases are opposite scenarios, but it’s the same idea. You can ask for it to be reconsidered only if you voted with the majority whether it passed or failed. It’s like saying, “I think I want to change my vote and that might swing it the other way.”

      • bk

          

        • restofva
          • restofva

            Waxman was able to call for reconsideration because he was the chair. Do you have any suggested reading for procedural things such as this?

          • bk

            Not sure if it’s a Roberts Rules of Order thing or a Congressional Rules thing or what.

  • JHancock

    before I’ll let a murdering medical system save me. I won’t pay in to this system if it funds abortion, even if it costs me my job or I end up thrown in jail by the IRS.

  • beafrank

    The govt pays coverage to abort the fetus and limits coverage for ‘end-of-life’ care.

  • http://www.redstate.com/britcom/ Britcom

    A Goebbels wannabe.