Who knew there were so many pro-life Democrats? Evidently, pro-life Democrats like Ben Nelson want to make sure the bill blocks federal funding for abortions and he went so far as to say he’d vote against it if it didn’t include the provision:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid found his health reform efforts seriously complicated Monday by the explosive issue of abortion, as key centrist senators said they wanted to see airtight language in the bill blocking federal funding for the procedure.
Abortion threatened to derail a House health reform bill Saturday, and now it’s standing in the way of Reid’s attempts to get 60 votes as well, with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) saying he wants to see language as restrictive as the House’s in the Senate bill.
If the language isn’t clear in prohibiting federal funds for abortion, “you could be sure I would vote against it,” said Nelson, who met with Reid on Monday.
Other key moderates didn’t go quite that far, but at least two others — Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana — said they, too, want to ensure that the Senate bill prevents federal dollars from paying for abortion.
“I think all of us have recognized throughout that there are three things” — abortion, illegal immigration and the public option — “that could really bring this down,” said Conrad, the only Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee to vote with Republicans on amendments restricting abortion rights.
“I don’t know that anyone has quite found the right formula yet,” Conrad said about the abortion language.
On the other side of the argument, over 40 House Democrats have said they wouldn’t vote for the final bill if it restricted abortions:
More than 40 House Democrats signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowing to vote against a final health overhaul measure if it includes abortion restrictions contained in legislation approved Nov. 7, said Representative Diana DeGette.
The letter circulating among lawmakers calls “unprecedented and unacceptable” language approved by the chamber that would limit access to the procedure for people who use an insurance-purchasing exchange that would be created in pending U.S. health-care legislation.
“We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law,” says the letter, released by Democratic Representatives Louise Slaughter of New York and DeGette of Colorado. The two lead a caucus of lawmakers who favor abortion rights.
Make sure you read the rest of the article because it’s interesting to see the wrangling that went on before Pelosi caved and allowed a vote on Stupak’s amendment. The pro-aborts would have had a much better deal if Pelosi had honored the original compromise with Stupak (only those in the public option would have been impacted not those in the exchange).
But we all know all Reid and Pelosi have to do is offer enough pork to get their vote (just what we need, more government spending — I’m sure they added the pork to the cost of the bill, right?). Politicans (and I include Republicans here) will vote against principle if they think they’ll get something from it.
BTW, here is what one pro-abort House member thinks should happen given the involvement of the United States Council of Catholic Bishops in the negotiations over the Stupak amendment. Typical. When you lose the fight, sic a government agency on the opposition.
posted November 10, 2009 at 2:59 pm
The Stupak Amendment is widely misunderstood, as this post demonstrates. It will not only restrict women’s access to a legal health care procedure. It will also impose the views of one religious group – in this case, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops – on the entire country. The members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice – Christian and Jewish denominations – and millions of Americans of all faiths do not share the Catholic bishops’ ideology and do not want the bishops’ views to determine how they live their lives.
Virtually all denominations that have taken a position on health care reform have agreed it should be abortion neutral – that is, it should not change existing policy on abortion coverage. Clearly, the Catholic bishops’ group is not willing to honor that position. So let’s call this “compromise” what it is: an encroachment on the separation of religion and state and an affront to a basic constitutional principle.
It is appalling that this small Catholic hierarchy has such great influence over Congress and national policy. The fact that the Catholic hierarchy can dictate what Congress legislates shows a basic lack of understanding of the Constitution.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California put it clearly in floor debate on the legislation: “We’re a democracy, not a theocracy.” If the Stupak Amendment is the beginning of a trend, the Catholic bishops will be dictating policy on a number of social issues.
posted November 10, 2009 at 5:30 pm
The IRS could sure use the money.