I've been waiting for this.

hoooorrrraaay. Now he needs to say he will not sign a bill that restricts women's rights.

I've had the feeling over the last day or 2 that the conservadem womb chasers who voted for this amendment have been played. I just read the article below on firedoglake.com which all but, confirms my suspicion. This amendment appears to be hurtling towards defeat.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/11/09/senate-likely-to-need-60-votes-to-insert-stupak-amendment-into-health-care-bill/#comments

People Who Oppose Abortion Are Officially More Important Than You

Summary via reddit"

God forbid some pro-lifer's tax dollars pay for abortion! Now how about I get out of paying for war, the death penalty. wiretaps, imprisoning non-violent drug offenders, etc.?

In the quote above, Obama OMITS SAYING (more strongly and convincingly) that he will absolutely refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

His statement is weak and broad lacking in specifics:

NOW Opposes Health Care Bill That Strips Millions of Women of Abortion Access
Says Bill Obliterates Women's Fundamental Right to Choose

The Stupak Amendment goes far beyond the abusive Hyde Amendment, which has denied federal funding of abortion since 1976. The Stupak Amendment, if incorporated into the final version of health insurance reform legislation, will:

Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion;
Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.
NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women's constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

Here's the NOW link:

http://www.now.org/press/11-09/11-08.html

According to the article from firedoglake.com that I attached above this amendment is not in the bill that was passed by the house. Remember, it's the Stupak amendment, not an actual bill. It was also not part of the Baucus bill. This means that when the 2 bills are merged the Stupak amendment will have to be debated on the floor.

"Amendments on the floor of the House of Representatives typically require a simple majority to pass".

...Obama OMITS SAYING (more strongly and convincingly) that he will absolutely refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women's access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.

Terri, thanks so much for your information, but I gotta tell you, I'm really getting tired of your bullseye on Obama. Nothing he will ever say will satisfy you because of your perception that he's betrayed us all.

We know that Stupak amendment sucks. We have all stated the Stupak amendment sucks. Obama says the Stupak amendment sucks. But why on earth would you think that it would be politically advantageous for the president to make a statement like that before anyone knows if this shit amendment will even make it into the final bill?

For fuck's sake!

It's an AMENDMENT to the bill, rox. That means it's part of the bill, just not in the body of the bill, just as the Bill of Rights is a collection of amendments to the Constitution. And yes, they require a simple majority to pass, just as bills do.
And of course it's not part of the Baucus plan - Stupak is in the House & Baucus is in the Senate. At the moment there is no final Senate bill, just the ones which got passed out of the committees dealing with healthcare reform. It's highly, highly doubtful that the Baucus plan will be the final Senate bill.

Exactly Broadway Cal! I'm not a poker player but, I'm guessing that this is what they mean by "Not Showing Your Hand".

Carl, apparently if Obama doesn't ride in on a pink unicorn wearing a loincloth and shooting lightning bolts out of his ass, it's not strong and convincing enough.

Ceu, I know Baucus is the Senator from Montana and that Stupak is a congressmen from Michigan. The Stupak amendment was not part of the original bill. Got it? This is why they had to vote on it separaely. Did you read the article I posted from firedoglake?
Here's another paragraph from the article.

So if the Stupak amendment isn’t included in the merged bill from Harry Reid’s office, it would, in all likelihood, need 60 votes. And it’s very likely that it would have to be inserted through an amendment.

This is true because Reid is blending the bills, not creating new policy. He didn’t include the repeal of the insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption, for example, even though he strongly supports the provision, because it didn’t appear in the bills from the Senate HELP Committee or the Senate Finance Committee.

Does that make it a little clearer? The House did not put the Stupak amendment in it's original bill and they can only merge what originated in both bills.

Thank you for that info, Roxsteady.

By the way, it's not the same as the Bill of Rights. The healthcare bill is legislation of policy. Not laws of the Constitution. Roe V Wade was not placed into the Constitution. It was signed into law.

Carl.....because without saying it, directly, like that it's just a bunch of hot air from him. He knows exactly what to say to soothe the masses, but it's fluff and meaningless talk.

Obama speaks like this a lot and it's weak and meaningless.

That's why.

Ceu is correct. The Stupak amendment is part of the bill as passed by the House.

Ceu merely used the "Bill of Rights" analogy to make it clear that the Stupak amendment is no less a part of the measure than the Bill of Rights, or any amendment, are a part of Constitution.

When the Senate passes a measure, and both bills go to conference, we all hope what emerges has no Stupak language in it.

Terri, unfortunately for you, Obama is not a dictator. He's offering guidance to congress on this and he has made his position clear.

What The Hell Jan and Terri!!! What are these constant hurdles and tests that the Left keeps putting up for this man? How much clearer does his statement have to be?

So are we going to add women to list of people that Obama has "betrayed"?

this shit is getting really old!

"Carl, apparently if Obama doesn't ride in on a pink unicorn wearing a loincloth and shooting lightning bolts out of his ass, it's not strong and convincing enough."

That's my fantasy, Kat, not Terri's. And shooting lightning bolts out of his ass would be...let's just say that would run counter to my interests.

Nano - lightning from his nipples, perhaps?

Nano, You crack me up (no pun intended)!

That's your opinion, Terri. Like I said, it doesn't matter what he says, it won't be good enough for you. I suppose you prefer an authoritarian? Gee, why can't he be more like Bush?

He'll say what needs to be said at the opportune time. We all know he's not an idiot. If you read the transcript, he wasn't directly asked if he would veto the bill with this amendment attached (unlike the answer he gave regarding deficit neutrality), but he clearly gave the signal when he said that this was NOT an abortion bill, it is a health care bill.

I do hope the hyperventilation on this issue that's rendered DailyKos unreadable for the past couple days doesn't come here.

I think it's fair to say that no one on the left favors the Stupak amendment, however to pretend that it undermines Roe v Wade or otherwise destroys the right to abortion is patently disingenuous.

Prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion; Prevent women participating in the public health insurance exchange, administered by private insurance companies, from using 100 percent of their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion; Prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely, in many cases.

All of the above simply means that government funding won't go to abortion. I don't like it, but that's what it is. As for low-income women being able to access abortion, who in Thor's name says you have a right to afford something? There are exceptions for rape and the health of the mother, so...

I detest sounding conservative, but just because the government won't fund something you want doesn't mean your rights are taken away. I have a right to visit New York City, however the government is under no obligation to pay for my plane, train or automobile to get there. I have a right to bear arms, but Uncle Sam isn't compelled to give me a rifle at taxpayer expense.

Are the anti-choice forces trying to chip away at the right to choose? You bet, and the Stupak amendment needs to go, not least because the government shouldn't be dictating what private companies may or may not cover. But to contend that the right to an abortion is no more thanks to this amendment (as several diarists on DKos have) is false on its face.

Terri:

>>>>Obama speaks like this a lot and it's weak and meaningless.

Yeah, he should be more like Bush. More WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE statements. More BRING IT ON statements. No nuance or thoughtfulness. Black and white. This "Obama should be stronger and more forceful ROOOOOWWWR!" shit is so September, 2008.

The president who "carried a big stick" -- the one whose giant mustache is on Mt. Rushmore -- wasn't able to get healthcare reform to this point.

Well, gosh, Rox. I actually understand how legislation works. I've been watching it now for nearly 6 decades and I got an A in Civics.

The Stupak Amendment is now a part of the House bill. Regardless of whether it was in there originally, it's in there now. The bill was passed AS AMENDED. Got it?

The 60 votes business relates to breaking a filibuster, not to the voting on a actual bill. Reid may well be blending bills, but the final bill on healthcare reform will come from a conference committee made up of members of both the House & the Senate and each chamber will then have to vote on it again. And once it comes out of the conference committee, there will be no amendments without it going back to the conference committee.

And thank you, Wolfe. That was exactly the analogy I was using. The amendments are no less a part of the document (or bill) just because they weren't in the body of the original document.

Um, the Baucus bill already passed in the Senate. Now they'll get merged but, again, only with both the Senate and House bills in their original form. The attempts to add amendments like Stupak's will have to be voted in on the floor of the Senate. Think about it guys, the reason it was so important to us that they put the public option into the House bill is because now, to get it out, you'd need 60 votes from the Dems. It's the opposite with the Stupak amendment. It was NOT part of the House or Senate bills and will need a floor vote! Oh, and Terri.....I'm guessing that Hillary thought Obama was soft too!

OK, Ceu, I'll try this one last time but, I'd suggest you read the article I attached above. This is the first line in the article:

Aides in the Senate leadership expect a version of the Stupak amendment to be debated in the Senate, but only as an amendment, not embedded into the bill being merged by Harry Reid.

You'll note that it refers to the Stupak AMENDMENT, not the Stupak bill.

A few sentences later:

Because of the cloture rule, amendments in the Senate often require 60 votes to break a filibuster. It has always been likely that 60 votes would be needed for all amendments on the Senate floor. That was confirmed to me a month ago

GOT IT?
I hope so because it's time for Keith and I've got to go. Be back later!

(Hi Kat!) Yeah, Obama could speak more forcefully. But I'm actually a fan of the president, and the executive branch in general, allowing Congress to do their job, so I fully cosign his statement.

@Klaus: Yes, technically it is still legal to get an abortion. But the constant passing of laws that makes it basically impossible for many, many women to get an abortion is practically the same as making it illegal. And frankly, is more effective. There's no need to try to overturn Roe v. Wade if you've made it impossible for women to afford or get to an abortion provider.

Rox:

The Baucus bill passed out of Senate Finance and was reported to the Senate on Oct. 19th.

It has NOT passed the Senate. If it had, Reid would not be "melding" anything, HCR would be in Conference Committee.

Do yourself a favor. Google "Schoolhouse Rock" and get a lesson in Government 101.

the Baucus bill already passed in the Senate No, it didn't. It passed the Finance Committee. Nothing has been passed in the Senate, just in the committees. Otherwise, Lieberman's threat to filibuster would be totally meaningless.

Actually Wolfe, if the Baucus bill didn't pass then how are they going to merge an unpassed Senate bill? Perhaps it is you who should forget about School House Rock and take a course in reading comprehension instead of insulting me.

It was the SENATE FINANCIE COMMITTE BILL! The Financi Committe is the Senate Finance Committe! It's not a separate committe

How is it that you guys don't remember when Baucus came out to announce that they had passed his turd of a bill and everyone trashed it because it didn't have a public option? Everyone refered to it as the Max Tax Bill.

Oh good! Diana DeGette will be on the Rachel Maddow show. Perhaps we can all get a better understanding of this amenement and how it will be either including in the final bill or if there is no way they'll have to votes to pass it if it is in the final bill. I didn't mean to be nasty with any of you. I just think there is a lot of confusion about this amendment. It will be good to hear from the Congresswoman. Perhaps I'm the only one?

One more time, then I will stop trying to explain it to you.

Baucus' bill (actually, since it was amended in committee, it is a Senate Finance Committee Substitute) passed out of the Senate Finance Committee on October 19.

This was the action that caused the hullabaloo which made Republican Olympia Snowe famous for a day or two, because she voted for moving it out of committee (but would not commit to voting for it when it hit the Senate Floor.

The Senate Finance Committee bill was put on the Senate Legislative Calendar on October 19 under General Orders.

Reid is in the process of "melding" the Senate Finance Committee measure with other Senate Committees - for instance, the “Affordable Health
Choices Act” penned by Senator Ted Kennedy, which is currently in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

While you may think I know nothing, I am quite familiar with how a bill becomes law.

I spent nearly a decade working for one of the most powerful members (at the time) of the Alaska Legislature. The way it works on Capitol Hill in Washington DC is a bit more complex and nuanced than it is in Juneau, AK, but the general process is essentially the same.

As I said: If the Senate had already passed a HCR bill, they'd be in conference now, hammering out a final measure.

@Klaus: Yes, technically it is still legal to get an abortion. But the constant passing of laws that makes it basically impossible for many, many women to get an abortion is practically the same as making it illegal. And frankly, is more effective. There's no need to try to overturn Roe v. Wade if you've made it impossible for women to afford or get to an abortion provider.

I agree, and I do oppose the amendment. My contention is against the view that this is a line in the sand, particularly since it only addresses elective abortion (again, since it covers the usual exceptions for rape, etc).

If one can't afford an abortion, one should think carefully about the risks involved beforehand. If the man refuses to wear a condom, then get rid of him. In most states, the pill is widely available. Granted, there's a chance of failure, but if one is going to be sexually active there are risks. I advocate the government covering abortion, but since it doesn't there's no excuse to be unaware of the possibility of pregnancy and to take precautions.

I recognize this varies from state to state (there was a clinic where I lived in NY that provided them at low or no cost; the same is not likely true in, say, Oklahoma). That's where state laws and the appropriate activism enter.

Thanks Wolfe! I get it but, my point was that the Senate Finance Committe bill was passed and now must be merged. Now, they'll merge those other bills with the House bill for a final passage.

@Klaus: Yes, but that is because many people assume elective abortion only covers abortions sought for unplanned, unwanted pregnancies in the first trimester. But many women seek "elective" abortions because the fetus has died, or has such extensive defects that it will never be viable once born. These abortions are also considered elective, and would therefore not be covered, and could certainly be considerably more expensive. What "health of the mother" means is already up for debate in our laws. A woman shouldn't have to risk death or infertility before her insurance covers the costs of removing a dead fetus from her body.

Roxsteady

What ceu is trying to tell you is that the Senate had 5 committees produce 'bills'. The Senate committees, all 5 of them.

The House has passed, by the full House, what we witnessed Saturday night a House 'bill'. The House had several committees, maybe someone else knows how many, that provided 'bills'. What you witnessed Saturday night was the compilation of the work of those House committees.

What we are now doing is waiting on Harry Reid to grow a pair bigger than Nancy. The Senate now has to do what the House has done. They have to 'meld' the 5 committee bills into one. I believe the committee consists of Leahy, Reid, Dodds and Rahm. They will put together the Senates version. Then it will go to a vote on the floor for debate. This is where they ask should this amendment be debated and votes will then be held on that. It takes 60 votes to have a decision on whether to bring such items to the floor for debate. That is called 'cloture'. If there are 60 votes to say yes, hen the amendment is debated. If not, there is no debate for that amendment. And so on and so on, the Senate can take weeks doing something. I believe I have Senate procedures correct. I am only familiar with the House rules. I think I have the basics down. When you see the House and Senate in action, it really is an incredible experience. I just wish I would have paid more attention.

The "merging" that you say Reid is doing is the merging of the bills which came from the Finance Committee - oops, the SENATE Finance Committee, and the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee (that would be the HELP or Kennedy Bill, the text of which can be found here
The merging - melding, whatever, you're talking about happens only AFTER a bill is passed by the entire Senate.

Wolfe_tone! Bob just posted a question asking if any of us knows if there has ever been a state with an opt out that they actually opted out of? He said that Arizona opted out of Medicaid but, opted back in, in 1982.

yeah, what Vera & Wolfe said....

Well, I couldn't find anything for Bob on the opt outs. I'm amazed however that so many programs from Medicaid to the federal highway bill?
It's true that when states pass these kinds of bills it's hard to take them away even with an opt out! I can't believe Arizona opted out of Medicaid at one point. Were all the eldery people in Arizona wealthy before 1982?

@Klaus: Yes, but that is because many people assume elective abortion only covers abortions sought for unplanned, unwanted pregnancies in the first trimester. But many women seek "elective" abortions because the fetus has died, or has such extensive defects that it will never be viable once born. These abortions are also considered elective, and would therefore not be covered, and could certainly be considerably more expensive. What "health of the mother" means is already up for debate in our laws. A woman shouldn't have to risk death or infertility before her insurance covers the costs of removing a dead fetus from her body.

Agreed, and I would love to see that challenged in court since a dead fetus leading to infection is certainly a risk to health, and I see no reason why that should not be covered.

By the way Wolf_tone, I posted this last night somewhere; maybe you'd know. Does the Stupak amendment amount to a Bill of Attainder? It singles out a specific group "women"

Well Diana DeGette cleard up something else for me when she said that the language in the base bill, or original bill alredy preserved the Hyde amendment. She said if Stupak amendment is put in the final bill, it will not pass. She also said that the 40 signatures she collected for votes against against this amendment were obtained before the House bill's final passage. She said she immediately starting collecting signatures right after the Stupak amendment was voted on. Good for her and so she says she's still collecting signatures.

Rox - I'm not sure but I think a Bill of Attainder is an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial.

Since we're not talking about declaring a specific group guilty of something, I don't think it can be considered a bill of attainder.

On Rachel...Turns out, Stupak lives at C Street! And she had some tape of him talking about Mark Foley & how they knew he had a "different lifestyle" but "if you know someone and you warn the pages...". Warn the pages? instead of the cops? Yeah, this is the guy whose morality needed to be inserted into HCR.

Thanks Broadway Carl! I was looking at some of the language and wondered about this. On the plus side Rachel Maddow and Jeff Sharlet are discussing the fact that Bart Stupak is a resident of C-Street. Let's hope she gives him the full Ensign treatment. If these womb chasers are going to come after women, they should be exposed for their ties to that Bible thumping whore house. Actually firedoglake had a contest this morning asking for suggestions on a name for a ficticious C-Street reality show. My suggestions are below:

Tricky Dicks
Hallelujah Hotel
The Vagina Ranch
Womb Raiders
Beaver House
The Penis Palace
Twig and Berries

Carl,
Alan Grayson explains what a Bill of Attainder is when it's shoehorned into a bill as an amendment (in this case, an amendment de-funding ACORN).

Here's the problem as I see it. Being a member of the exchange does not mean that the government is subsidizing your health insurance. It just means that the government has negotiated rates for you. So, the Stupak rule that women that pay their insurance in the exchange 100% are somehow receiving government subsidies for insurance is just wrong.

But, the reason Stupak has gotten as far as he has is because money is fungible. Suppose I pay 90% of my insurance the government subsidizes the rest. Stupak says that the whole thing should be treated as government subsidies that cannot be used to pay for insurance that covers abortion.

The semantics matter and this is where Obama is going to be in a pickle if it gets that far.

Not to mention that this is a back door way of shutting down all insurance coverage for abortions. The same party that wants government out of our lives now wants Congress to tell private insurers what products they can sell to their customers. Absolutely incredible.

This Stupak amendment is bullshit. Every female member of Congress has insurance through plans provided by the government in an exchange. Now, I suspect that if any of these women needed to have an abortion it's probably covered under their plan. Which is supplied by the government. Am I wrong here? Do these women have a separate abortion insurance policy?

@rox: that is a really interesting question. is their plan available somewhere for us to read and see what's covered? It is possible that they also supplement their insurance with private plans, but I have no idea. Someone should definitely look into it.

It would be helpful if we could get a look at some the plans currently available in the exchanges. Or even get one of our female senators or congresswomen to bring her policy to the floor and read the specific language that covers reproductive care. It would be great theater as opposed to bringing in a child as a prop like that asshole Republican did on Saturday.

Rox and J:

See this regarding federal employee health insurance abortion coverage ban:

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/files/abortion-access-to-abortion-women-government-federal-employees.pdf

BTW, I got this info from the NARAL website which has additional information regarding this issue.

The Hyde Amendment

Thanks ec! I'll check it out. I'd better hurry though. Almost time for The Daily Show!

I'm really sick of this "Obama isn't being forceful enough". He's the president and everything he says gets dissected for nuance and hidden meanings. He's not a dictator. He can't order Congress to write a bill to his exact specifications. That's what separation of powers means.

I was watching Rachel Maddow tonight. Sen. Bernie Sanders was on and he expressed his displeasure with the Stupack amendment. But, when asked point blank if he would vote against a bill that included the amendment even he punted and just said that'd he prefer it wasn't in there but he'd have to take all factors into consideration.

If Bernie Sanders won't make an absolute commitment to oppose a bill with that amendment, did you really expect Obama it issue a veto threat?

Also, remember when Clinton held up his pen and said he'd veto any bill that didn't cover all Americans? Remember what the result of that line in the sand was? That's right, no health care reform for a generation.

It is disingenuous for the democrats to act like this amendment was some sort of surprise. This has been an issue with the health care bill since the get go. I cannot believe that Pelosi bargained away so much of the bill that she has nothing to offer to squash this thing.

The Dems were not blindsided by this thing. I might add that it was a smart move by the Republicans to wait until they had Pelosi in this position.

I am not optimistic about this at all. The Democrats and Obama have been played and it will do damage to the party.

I hope that I am wrong.

Alan Grayson explains what a Bill of Attainder is when it's shoehorned into a bill as an amendment (in this case, an amendment de-funding ACORN).

Right, Wolfe, but I believe it has to do with the specific group doing something illegal to cause the legislation.

The thing that strikes me about this particular attack on reproductive rights is the hypocrisy that Republicans are showing yet again. Stupak's essential point is that if you use government money to free up any other funds, those funds, no matter where they came from, cannot be used for abortion or it is the same as using government money for abortions.

Okay, so if we give the citizens of this country a tax break like the Repubs are always pushing, and any citizen who gets a tax break gets an abortion, according to Repub logic, that person is using gov't money to get an abortion. Shouldn't the Repubs be against tax breaks then?

@J thanks for responding to @Klaus line of thought

@Klaus I think you're finally seeing the light....

3 points:

1) There is de facto and de jure consequences of law. The amendment does not "de jure"--by law-- ban abortions. But it will mean in fact--de facto--that elective abortions are more difficult to obtain. The Supreme Court has struck down laws that accomplish "de facto" what could not be accomplished "de jure" in civil right and constitutional law (thinking here of Segregation case law)

2) Be careful when you bandy about the concept that women, particularly poor women, need to think ahead and show responsibility when it comes to intercourse that might result in children. If keep hearing that logic without a corresponding "men need to think about consequences", I'll start advocating the dailykos suggestion--"Every sperm should be sacred" Bill. And you won't like it, believe me! (Being snarky here, not mean-spirited)

3) All those politicians that took money from insurance companies that currently cover abortions and STILL voted for the Stupak amendment are hypocrits in the extreme. What other money is gained from things they supposedly find morally repugnant? How about pharma companies that donate to their campaigns that perform stem cell research? Will they be renouncing those funds? I think not.....Why isn't anyone hammering away at their obvious bullcrap!