An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

Don’t Push Your Luck, Stupak

Steve Benen:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) was able to get his odious amendment through the House, but it’s unlikely to do as well in the Senate, especially after President Obama signaled his desire to see it changed. It led the Michigan Democrat to start making threats today.

“We won because [the Democrats] need us,” Stupak said. “If they are going to summarily dismiss us by taking the pen to that language, there will be hell to pay. I don’t say it as a threat, but if they double-cross us, there will be 40 people who won’t vote with them the next time they need us — and that could be the final version of this bill.”

There are some pretty dramatic problems with this bravado. For one thing, there’s no “double-cross” — Speaker Pelosi let him bring his measure up for a vote and it passed. There was never any deal that the Senate had to follow suit. For another, according to House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Stupak brought 10 votes, not 40.

Indeed, it’s probably worth noting that Stupak has proven to be something on an extremist when it comes to opposing women’s reproductive rights, but it’s not all clear that he represents an unyielding bloc of lawmakers. It’s not unreasonable to think that some of the same pro-life Dems who voted for Stupak/Pitts and the reform bill may also be willing to accept a compromise that Stupak would reject.

Meanwhile, back in the land of Steele-trap minds:

The Republican National Committee’s health insurance plan covers elective abortion – a procedure the party’s own platform calls “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.”

Federal Election Commission Records show the RNC purchases its insurance from Cigna. Two sales agents for the company said that the RNC’s policy covers elective abortion.

Informed of the coverage, RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho told POLITICO that the policy pre-dates the tenure of current RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

“The current policy has been in effect since 1991, and we are taking steps to address the issue,” Gitcho said.
[...]
According to several Cigna employees, the insurer offers its customers the opportunity to opt out of abortion coverage – and the RNC did not choose to opt out.

But rank and file Republicans said Thursday that the policy should – and would – be changed.

“We were not aware of this, obviously, [duhhh!]and this will, of course, be fixed,” said James Bopp Jr., a Republican National Committeeman from Indiana. “I think Chairman Steele [duhhh!] will see to it that that’s the case.”

Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia conservative, said “they need to drop that clause” from the policy or find a new one.

“From a philosophical standpoint, it’s inconsistent,” Kingston said. “It makes me think someone isn’t scrutinizing the purchases.”

  • JeffersonDavis
    Good gracious, Kat. Can't we limit this subject to one thread a day?
    It's emotionally exhausting!
  • JSpencer
    Interesting, especially the part about the republican plan covering elective abortion. I guess that sort of thing doesn't really surprise me anymore. As for Stupak, he might want to tone down his rhetoric a little bit; sounds like he imagines himself to be a bigger fish than he probably is.

    When Benen mentions Stupak's record on women's reproductive rights I can't help but wonder about the degree to which misogyny might not be playing a part in all of this. Yes, I know, this the 21st century, we don't have misogyny, or racism, or any other obsolete attitudes anymore. ;-)





  • I'm a woman, I'm certainly not a misogynist, and I believe in limits on abortion. It is beyond my understanding how either side can think that there will not be compromises made on this issue. Pro lifers need to understand that abortion will never again be completely illegal in the US. And pro-abortion advocates can't have everything their way either. However they personally feel about abortion, it is morally repugnant to many of their fellow citizens - that is an unchangeable fact that the health care plan has to deal with. I applaud the prolife Dems for keeping this issue on the table; and I deplore that our representatives cannot be more flexible and creative in dealing with the problems abortion presents.
  • Agreed, with an additional restriction of 5 threads per week.

    I see no problem with Stupak predicting that removing the language of the amendment might cause the bill to go down. If he's a loyal Democrat, isn't it his obligation to make that known so that such a defeat can be avoided?

    Or it could be blackmail. I guess that's in the eye of the beholder. Either way, what he says doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how many votes they can get.
  • AustinRoth
    She probably thinks it is easier to hide from me here!

    :-)
  • DaMav
    Just another example of conservatives tearing the party apart and alienating moderates by applying litmus tests and bucking party leadership. Oh wait, wrong party.
  • kathykattenburg
    ROFL!!
  • JSpencer
    Karen, I have no problems with compromise when it comes to abortions beyond the first trimester, but up until that time they should be legal and available - and without the patient having to walk through a gauntlet of screaming, spitting lunatics - and without the Dr. having to worry about some nutcase shooting him or bombing the clinic. Also I don't have a problem with the patient being required to pay for her own abortion, although this is an area in which there is a certain amount if inconsistency when it comes to the principle involved. Beyond the first trimester, I believe there should be health-based restrictions. As for late term abortions (which are extremely rare, and are mostly a political football) I am against them except in cases where the mother's life is in danger. I hope this helps to clarify my postion.
  • ProfElwood
    I thought that we already covered that. The ordinary, over-the-counter pill can be used to force a period, if you know how to use it. Again, I'm still wondering if these people are trying to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.
  • DLS
    (Correct, complete title of this new thread on the old subject)

    [pant, pant] Don't push your luck, Stupak, you disguised right-wing patriarchal bastard! [grrrr]


    Karen -- that's because you and I and others are in the real world. And, the issue isn't resolved yet. The militant fringe pro-abortion absolutists are joined by "progressive" Dems in the House who will fight to get the language in the health legislation liberalized, while also seeking to get it first liberalized by the Senate, if they can. There will no doubt be pushing in the the direction by those who won't accept any militant extremes (and don't forget, there is nothing "sacred" about creating a new federal entitlement to publicly-funded abortion; that, in fact, is fringist and controversial and opposed by most, obviously). Add to that, whatever muscle-flexing and bellowing we may hear from the currently-sidelined GOPers, notably the social conservatives (right on cue, if the extremist lefties keep howling too loudly; the latter will in fact have earned the bellowing of the former; "congratulations"!). Just as the public option is not anywhere near dead yet, nor is there a resolution or settlement yet of federal provision of or funding for abortion. Note that the fringist leftists, who routinely disgrace and embarrass themselves, once again do so to their own discredit if they choose to be stupidly obscessed and inflammatory about this trivial side issue, risking loss of the beachhead of a universal-entitlement-oriented federal role for health care now.
  • Leonidas
    Having big tent intolerance isn't just a right-wing republican thing, their left-wing democratic twins are just as bad.
  • Leonidas
    For one thing, there’s no “double-cross” — Speaker Pelosi let him bring his measure up for a vote and it passed.


    What he is talking about is if the language of his amendment is dropped in the final bill, if it is, he is calling that a double cross and is threatening 40 votes being removed from support of it in the House, enough to sink the bill with quite a few to spare. Even 10 votes would be more than enough. No clue how Mr. Benen didn't understand that in his article, its pretty darn obvious.

    And Stupak could make it hell to pay, Pro-life democrats plus Republicans would constitute a majority in the House and Senate and could start passing new bills if the pro-life democrats felt "double-crossed".
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC