THE HILL
 

Senior Democrat is 'confident' that Stupak amendment will be stripped

By Michael O'Brien - 11/09/09 11:50 AM ET

A House Democratic leader said Monday she's “confident” controversial language on abortion will be stripped from a final healthcare bill.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-abortion rights lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from subsidizing abortions.

“I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won't be there,” Wasserman Schultz said during an appearance on MSNBC. “And I think we're all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that's the case.”

The amendment, offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), won the support of Republicans and dozens of centrist Democrats in the House, but revealed a deep divide in the Democratic caucus over abortion.

Sixty-four Democrats voted for Stupak’s amendment, without which the House healthcare bill would not have won final passage in a 220-215 vote.

Stupak’s language not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public insurance option included in the House bill. It would also prevent private plans from offering coverage for abortion services if they accept people who are receiving government subsidies.

Allowing the vote represented a major concession by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to Stupak and other anti-abortion rights  Democrats who had threatened to oppose the bill. But it came at the cost of angering liberals in the Democratic Caucus.

Abortion-rights supporters called it a “de facto” abortion ban and mounted an intense but unsuccessful lobbying campaign against it.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said Monday she expected a meeting with President Barack Obama next week to press her case against the Stupak amendment. DeGette, the co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, circulated a letter with the signatures of 40 other House lawmakers vowing to vote against any conference report that still contains the amendment.

The conference between the House and Senate bills after the upper chamber passes its bill will present an opportunity to strip the Stupak amendment, and liberal Democrats have vowed to work hard to get rid of that language during that stage of the legislation.

“It was extremely painful for me to feel compelled to vote for a bill that contained that kind of restriction on a woman's ability to make her own reproductive choices,” Wasserman Schultz said.

Republicans over the weekend signaled they’d seek similar language in the Senate bill, while several centrist Democrats are already wavering on the bill.

It’s not clear how the abortion debate could impact a final vote in the House on the healthcare bill, but it could be difficult for many of the centrists who supported Stupak’s amendment to vote for a healthcare bill that did not include his language.

In addition, the only Republican who voted for the legislation, Rep. Joseph Cao (La.), said the Stupak amendment cleared the way for him to support the legislation.

But it’s also possible liberals could drop their support for the bill if the language is not changed.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/66969-senior-dem-confident-stupak-amendment-will-be-stripped

Comments (405)

It is very revealing how people like Congresswoman Shultz uses a phrase like "reproductive choices" instead of stating the truth "having the ability to kill a developing human being". You know someone is dead wrong about an issue when they do their best to sanitize it. This country is spiraling into pure evil when we choose to give special protections to gay people (the murder of anyone is a horrendous crime no matter the reason) via the hate crimes legislation, yet we refuse to protect the most defenseless among us - the preborn and elderly!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!BY Melissa in Florida on 11/09/2009 at 13:01
To LINDNAB, I don't hear you complaining about our lawmakers health insurance paying for abortions, we pay for that you know.Seems to me everyone that's against this, isn't complaining about the health care coverage of our Congressional Leaders, or their salaries, etc. Which comes out of the taxpayers pockets.BY SUZIE on 11/09/2009 at 13:02
It is amazing how much "Propaganda" is being spread by the Democratic Party. They claim that to NOT provide Federal Money for Abortion means the same as preventing abortion and that women will use coat hangers to abort their own babies on a wholesale basis. This as everyone knows is a complete lie. What the Stupak Amendment does is PREVENT TAX PAYER MONEY from PAYING FOR ABORTIONS. Just as it is NOW and has been since the 1970's. It mean keeping the status quo. To say differently is to propagandize the abortion debate to the point that is outside the perview of the US Constitution.BY Bob R. on 11/09/2009 at 13:02
I'm glad to see the Democrats leadership is admitting to it's pro-life membership that it was a lie when they told them that federal funding abortion is not in the bill but we will let you have your vote to take it out. Sorry we had our fingers crossed, thanks for your vote on the bill suckers. If they will lie to their own members, do you really think they will be honest with everyone else. You've been O.P.R.A.H.E.D. (Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Acorn, Hoyer, Emanuel, Durbin) How does it feel?BY eco3810 on 11/09/2009 at 13:02
Li'l Debbie had better zip it and lay low…but herradical activism just won't let her. Dems areundercut by their own compulsion to crow. See you all next November.BY grizzlybare on 11/09/2009 at 13:02
This would be sad- if it wasn't so funny! It is ILLEGAL to use federal funds for abortion. Period. These end runs around the LAW are very typical- remember the effort to get a new house of representatives member out of D.C. (something CLEARLY FORBIDDEN in the constitution).I don't want any part of your 'reproductice health' decisions- and sorry folks that includes PAYING for them.YOU made your decision. That's why they called 'YOUR' problems.So YOU pay for it.BY Simon on 11/09/2009 at 13:03
10.2 % unemployment all Dem's fault? Incredibly ignorant considering what lead the U.S. to this financial abyss. That would be all sorts of laws and controls removed during an 8 year Republican White House, 6 years of which they enjoyed a Republican controlled Congress. By the way all you who are angry with Obama 'ignoring' Afghanistan. Why weren't you angry with Bush when he ignored it for 7 years?BY Stu on 11/09/2009 at 13:03
Go, Debbie, Go! The harder you work on this issue, the deader this bill becomes!BY J.B. on 11/09/2009 at 13:03
Of course it will be stripped out of the bill. We no longer have any representation in Washington DC and barely have it at the State level. Thgese Democrats are the lowest form of life. Keep pushing the people and eventually the people will push back and that is when it gets nasty.BY rightside on 11/09/2009 at 13:05
My gosh, reading what the uneducated, public-option supporters write in these forums, truly shows how far in denial these people are. I can only say to you that support this House bill ", Just because you feel as though you have been left behind, because you have failed at your life ambitions, because you have failed as parents to your hopeless drug addicted/dealing children, just because you are ticked-off at society because you were too stupid to recognize false campaign promises of (Hope Change), just because you messed your lives- up through your own stupidity and have nobody but yourselves to blame, DON'T TREAD ON MY FAMILY, DONT TREAD ON ME, DO NOT TAKE US DOWN THE PATH YOU DECIDED TO GO DOWN WHEN YOU FAILED AT YOUR OWN LIFE. BY Michael Wright on 11/09/2009 at 13:05
The bill doesn't prohibit abortions it just makes it illegal to force me to pay for one.If you want one that badly, you won't mind paying for it out of pocket.BY patricia on 11/09/2009 at 13:07
“It was extremely painful for me to feel compelled to vote for a bill that contained that kind of restriction on a woman's ability to make her own reproductive choices,” Wasserman Schultz said.==================================Hey moron - a woman currently has the right to make that choice. But she needs to do it with her own damn money, not with the taxpayers' money!!! Schultz is as clueless as they come, but any "blue dog" Democrat or Republican who voted for this while trusting the lying scumbags in charge deserve to lose their job as well. Speak loud and clear in 2010 that this type of deception and self-importance is no longer acceptable.BY Jim on 11/09/2009 at 13:08
Liberals hate humanity. Simple as that. You're all to blame for everything and the only way to make it better is to wipe out more humans.NEW LIFE STARTS AT CONCEPTION. That life, if left to grow naturally, WILL result in a breathing, walking, talking man or woman.Which brings me back to my first point.Pro-choice liberals are heartless animals.BY menge123 on 11/09/2009 at 13:09
My gosh, reading what the uneducated, public-option supporters write in these forums, truly shows how far in denial these people are. I can only say to you that support this House bill ", Just because you feel as though you have been left behind, because you have failed at your life ambitions, because you have failed as parents to your hopeless drug addicted/dealing children, just because you are ticked-off at society because you were too stupid to recognize false campaign promises of (Hope Change), just because you messed your lives- up through your own stupidity and have nobody but yourselves to blame, DON'T TREAD ON MY FAMILY, DONT TREAD ON ME, DO NOT TAKE US DOWN THE PATH YOU DECIDED TO GO DOWN WHEN YOU FAILED AT YOUR OWN LIFE. BY Mike on 11/09/2009 at 13:09
Who's looking out for the rights of the babies? If Liberals got their way on this, they will be murdering their own new crop of voters. Some people care more about animals than they do about the innocent kids. It's time to stop the killing.BY Mike on 11/09/2009 at 13:09
I am not for abortion but after seeing this lady.. Let's allow funding! We could have stopped that monster before she was ever born.. Yuck… Ugly, ugly, ugly..BY Dan S on 11/09/2009 at 13:11
I didn't get to f**k the babe, why do I now have to f**k the baby?BY Carl Parsons on 11/09/2009 at 13:11
since when is abortion a "reproductive choice"—?Women's choices include- using birth control, not having sex…BY Marcelle on 11/09/2009 at 13:12
The economy didn't start to falter until Dems won the house…Bush's economy was strong. All spending bills start in the house, or did you forget that "STU"? Nice, try.BY Carl Parsons on 11/09/2009 at 13:14
Killing innocent lives is bad enough, but if the pregnant mother wants the abortion, she should have to pay for the cost. Give me a good reason why I should have to pay for it?!BY SJ on 11/09/2009 at 13:14

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

Key Blogs

What they are saying today …
Drudge Report
Bannered across Drudge this morning is a question most of us in the Beltway have asked about the snow storm Friday: "When will it stop?" Below, Drudge links to an AP article on the recent trouble facing New York Gov. David Paterson (D), who many thought was about to be rocked by political scandal by a forthcoming story in The New York Times. That story hasn't arrived -- but speculation about its contents surely has -- leading Paterson to say he would depart office only as a result of the ballot box, or if he's carried out "in a box."… Read More »
The Huffington Post
"KEEP TRYING" -- That's the message one HuffPo writer took from the latest WaPo/ABC poll, which showed 63 percent of Americans still favored further action on healthcare reform. Additionally, Ryan Grim posts his recent interview with Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who predicted his chamber's historic filibuster could "fall of its own weight -- it should fall of its own weight -- or it will fall after some massive conflict on the floor, which has happened in the past where there have been rulings from the chair that have led to reform."… Read More »
The Corner
The Corner's Mark Krikorian points out in a recent post that the private sector -- namely, the National Review -- was able to devise how many immigrants were residing within the United States faster than the U.S. government could produce that data. And offering further proof that former Gov. Sarah Palin's (R-Alaska) crib notes have become something of a political meme is Kathryn Jean Lopez, who notices a famous country singer penning notes on his hand.… Read More »
The Washington Independent
"The story of coals dirty, deadly legacy" headlines The Washington Independent this morning. The story relates the political significance, health effects and community impacts of a fossil fuel that reporter Mike Lillis believes has White House's clear embrace.Earlier, Lillis looked at one element of Democrats' forthcoming jobs bill: A proposed unemployment insurance extension. The bill offers jobless Americans an additional three months of aid -- less than what the White House's budget requests, but on par with the House's extention, passed late last year.… Read More »
Red State
Michael Steele's remark this week -- that he has been subject to intense criticism because of his race -- has earned the scorn of Red State's Eric Erickson, who lambasts the Republican National Committee chairman in a blog post published late Tuesday. "Actually, it could have nothing to do with race and everything to do with outsourcing the RNC to the same consultants who have been bleeding the RNC dry for years," he says of Steele's low popularity. "It could have something to do with management styles. It could have everything to do with the Chairman never meeting a shoe he didn’t want to eat."… Read More »
MyDD
Jonathan Singer on Wednesday explores the current state of President Barack Obama's judicial nominations. But with the help of Slate's Doug Kendall, he finds that the president has both nominated fewer and confirmed fewer judges to federal benches than his predecessor at this point in his presidency. Concludes Singer: "But with a real crisis in the judiciary in the form of dozens of vacancies, one has to wonder why this President has nominated fewer than half of the judges nominated by his predecessor."… Read More »
Blog Summaries Archive »

Briefing Room Blog Roll

The Hill
ABC News: The Note
AMERICAblog
Barack Obama
Beat The Press
Bill Press
BuzzFlash
Capitol Briefing
Capitol Games
The Caucus (NYT)
Clive Crook
Comments From Left Field
CNN Political Ticker
The Corner (NRO)
Crooks and Liars
The Daily Beast
Daily Caller
Daily Kos
DCCC: The Stakeholder
DNC: Kicking Ass
DSCC: From The Roots
Drudge Report
Eschaton
Extreme Mortman
Ezra Klein
firedoglake
FishbowlDC
The Fix (WashPost)
The Foundry
Gkenn Greenwald
Hendrik Hertzberg
Hillary Clinton
Hot Air
Hotline on Call
Huffington Post
Human Events
Instapundit
James Fallows
John McCain
Judicial Watch: Corruption Chronicles
Kaus Files
Left Coaster
Lefty Blogs
Majority AP
Marc Ambinder
Matt Lewis
Matthew Yglesias
Megan McArdle
Michelle Malkin
Minority Report
The Moderate Voice
MSNBC First Read
MyDD
The Nation
National Review
The New Republic
NewsBusters
Newsmax
The NRCC Blog
NRSC Blog
Open Left
Page (Mark Halperin)
The Plank (TNR)
Political Animal
Political Wire
Politicker
Politico's Ben Smith
Politico's Jonathan Martin
Politico's The Crypt
Power Line
Reason
RedState
Right Wing News
RNC Blog
Ross Douthat
Rush Limbaugh
SCOTUSblog
Senate Guru
The Stump (TNR)
The Swamp (Tribune)
Swampland
Swing State Project
Talk Left
TalkingPointsMemo
TAPPED
Tech Policy Summit
techPresident
TechRepublican
The Right Angle
Think Progress
Top of the Ticket (LA Times)
Townhall
TPMCafe
TPMMuckraker
The Trail (WashPost)
Truthdig
USA Today On Politics
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Blog
VF Daily
Washington Wire (WSJ)
Weekly Standard
Wonkette
Yeas and Nays

Briefing Room Blog Topics

 Blog Summaries »   Technology »
 Day's End Round-Up »   Telecom and IT »
 Energy & Environment »   Trade and Agriculture »
 Midday Blog Roundup »  Lobbying »
 Morning Read »   Administration »
 News »   Campaigns »
  Campaigns »   Civil Rights »
   Administration »   Corporate Governance »
   Civil Rights »   Defense »
   Congressional Campaigns »   Economy & Budget »
   Corporate Governance »   Energy & Environment »
   Defense »   Foreign Policy »
   Economy & Budget »   Healthcare »
   Foreign Policy »   Homeland Security »
   Healthcare »   Immigration »
   Homeland Security »   Labor »
   Immigration »   Lobbyists »
   Labor »   Technology »
   Law and Courts »   Telecom and IT »
   Lobbyists »   Trade and Agriculture »
   Presidential Campaigns »  Other »
   Technology »   Administration »
   Telecom and IT »   Campaigns »
   Trade and Agriculture »   Civil Rights »
  Energy & Environment »   Congressional Campaigns »
  Lawmaker News »   Corporate Governance »
   Administration »   Defense »
   Campaigns »   Economy & Budget »
   Civil Rights »   Energy & Environment »
   Corporate Governance »   Foreign Policy »
   Defense »   Healthcare »
   Economy & Budget »   Homeland Security »
   Energy & Environment »   Immigration »
   Foreign Policy »   Labor »
   Healthcare »   Lobbyists »
   Homeland Security »   Presidential Campaigns »
   Immigration »   Technology »
   Labor »   Telecom and IT »
   Lobbyists »   Trade and Agriculture »
   Technology »  Oversight »
   Telecom and IT »   Administration »
   Trade and Agriculture »   Campaigns »
  Legislation »   Civil Rights »
   Administration »   Corporate Governance »
   Campaigns »   Defense »
   Civil Rights »   Economy & Budget »
   Corporate Governance »   Energy & Environment »
   Defense »   Foreign Policy »
   Economy & Budget »   Healthcare »
   Energy & Environment »   Homeland Security »
   Foreign Policy »   Immigration »
   Healthcare »   Labor »
   Homeland Security »   Lobbyists »
   Immigration »   Technology »
   Labor »   Telecom and IT »
   Lobbyists »   Trade and Agriculture »
You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.