Fellow Democrats
Well, frumps, it would appear that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) is either really feeling his oats or he’s developing superpowers. After warning ominously, a few days ago, that “there’d be hell to pay” if his language is stripped out of the House Bill, Stupak now promises that “If they do [strip the language from the bill], health care will not move forward …”
Pretty strong stuff from a guy whose anti-abortion club lost half it’s members over the past ten days. Stupak initially counted 30 – 40 Democrats in his camp, (that turned out to be 26 when the actual vote came up). Now he’s threatening that 10 – 20 Democrats will vote “No” on any final bill that doesn’t contain his “language.”
In the meantime, on November 9th, Glen Thrush at Politico reported an interesting wrinkle that might have made a difference:
“. . . about a stealth plan for Republicans — who are almost universally opposed to abortion — to vote “present” on the Democratic compromise restricting federal funding for abortion.”
“That could scuttle the Democrat’s hastily-arranged health care endgame, by leaving a bloc of several dozens conservatives with nothing to show for their last minute anti-abortion push.”
“But Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) swatted them down saying he knew of no organized effort to sabotage the vote and planned to whip the 177-member GOP conference in favor of Stupak.”
Taking the Good with the Bad
At any rate, the bill that came out of the House had Stupak’s Amendment crazy-glued to it. Of course, since then, President Obama signalled that Stupak will be stripped because it doesn’t preserve the status quo on healthcare. Obama promised that he would not pass reform that, in any way, diminished what is currently available. David Axelrod diplomatically seconded Obama, on Sunday, saying:
“. . . that the abortion funding limits offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) ran counter to Obama’s stated desire to avoid using the health care bill to change the federal government’s stance towards abortion. The bill that Congress passed does change the status quo . . . There are discussions ongoing about how to adjust it accordingly.”
And Bart Stupak is not going to stand for that – he’s done everything but stamp his foot and throw a tantrum, this week. He’s said that “They’re not going to take it out … we won fair and square.“ He also took a swipe at David Axelrod, saying: “That is why Mr. Axelrod is not a legislator. He doesn’t really know what he is talking about.” And of course, there’s the now famous “Hell to pay” threat if Stupak is stripped from the bill.
Now if it comes down to trusting only one of those two sources on this, I’m afraid I have to go with Axelrod, but that’s just me. One reason that I feel that way is that I haven’t heard anything but defensive “double talk” out of Stupak , so far. I have to assume that he’s either that dumb, or worse, that he thinks the rest of us are dumb enough to buy the notion that the Stupak Amendment is no different than the equally lame Hyde Amendment that we’ve already agreed to swallow.
The Fair and Balanced Approach
C Street: You go to your Church . . .
Maybe we should try looking at this from the “common sense” position (that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are so obsessed with lately) If, as Stupak has stated over and over, the Stupak Amendment is exactly the same as Hyde, then what do we need Stupak for, exactly?
I guess there is a chance that Stupak actually believes the Stupak=Hyde equation because I think there’s every chance in the world that his buddy, Congressman Pitts, had more to do with crafting the language than Stupak. It’s possible that Stupak is Pitts “mule” because what stunt could be better than getting a Democrat to “trojan horse” this amendment into the bill.
Either that or this is some sort of weird C Street Family hazing thing that Stupak has to pull off before he gets to be a full-fledged Family emissary, clandestinely jetting off to the Third World to incite revolutions and such, during recess. Or maybe he’ll just get evicted from the C Street frat house, if he doesn’t make his bones. Talk about Hell to pay . . .
One of the reasons that I distrust Stupak’s fervor for this issue is that he hasn’t always been such an outspoken champion of the Pro-Life movement. Joe Pitts, on the other hand, has voted Pro-Life 100% of the time for as long as he’s been in Congress. Per Project Vote Smart, which tracks how legislators vote on major issues, for 2007-2008, Stupak was rated by NARAL Pro-Choice as supporting NARAL 50% of the time and the National Right to Life organization 70% of the time. I’m sure Joe Pitts, for one, wouldn’t find that an ideologically pure position on abortion.
Candidate Stupak
Outside of this recent excursion, Stupak has voted with his party 96% of the time – he’s a “rank and filer”, as they say. So it’s even odder to me that he decided to stick his neck out and threaten to “kill” probably the most important piece of Democratic-sponsored legislation he’ll ever vote for in his little Democratic career. Not only that, Stupak’s particular contribution to this historic reform flies right in the face of the Democratic Party platform which reads:
“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”
and, thereby, flying in the face of the constituents and party that have supported his political career.
Given all of that, Rep. Stupak, I’m afraid that I have to agree with Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on this one: this lame Stupak Amendment – (that is the same as Hyde, so why do we need it?) – was jiggered into the bill at the last minute and it’s cowardly. You’ve spent years now, even before the Obama administration, championing health care reform and tearing into George Bush for vetoing SCHIP and now, all of a sudden you’re ready to kill comprehensive health care reform over an issue that you’ve barely mentioned in the past? Speeches, quotes, position papers? Cmon . . .
You’ve been campaigning on healthcare reform for a long time, Mr. Stupak, how about honoring your campaign promises and the Party that put you there in the US House of Representatives. [I still think a good test of candidates' Pro-Life commitment would be to require that they return any political donations from insurance companies that provide abortion coverage.]
Here are Keith and Rachel. I’ve reserved the “last word” for them . . .
Technorati Tags: Rep. Bart Stupak, HR 3200, Stupak Amendment, Rep. Joe Pitts, David Axelrod, anti-abortion, pro-choice, NARAL, National Right to Life
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I want to see some women in Congress front and center in proposing vasectomy legislation. Maybe even castration in the case of extreme misogynists. Let's get the playing field equal in who gets to decide what about other folks' bodies. And NO, that doesn't mean I'm PROabortion, castration, or looking into bedrooms in general. Let's just get a decent health care bill. "People are dying for lack of health care" isn't just a slogan.
My mother had a sudden reaction to penicillin after dental work and was found unconscious in her driveway. She was put in Intensive Care. As soon as she regained consciousness she signed herself out because she had inadequate health insurance, thanks to an ex-husband who had dropped her from his health insurance. It happens, folks. Abortion and health care don't belong on the same stage right now.
Saw that C Street has lost 66% of its religious exemption. The 33% Church on C Street…bogles the mind, doesn't it?!
p { margin: 0; }
No truer words \”Abortion and health care don't belong on the same stage right now.\” Sorry to hear about your mother, Mary Lee. She does sound like a woman with grit, though. I'm sure if she'd stayed in the hospital, they would have checked her out from tip to toe and presented her with a very expensive clean bill of health. Just one trip through the MRI machine costs $4K in my neck of the woods and, all of a sudden, there are very few health problems that can be diagnosed without it (it's a miracle we all managed to live so long without the benefit of MRI).
Heard yesterday about C Street (hehehehe). Looks like the tax man came to an equitable settlement with them: downstairs where they hold hands and pray and plot how to replace democracy with theocracy = tax exempt church; the upstairs brothel (the real cash cow) = taxable. Looks like rents will be going up . . .