THE HILL
 

Up-or-down vote on an amendment to block abortion funding approved

By Molly K. Hooper and Mike Soraghan - 11/07/09 01:27 AM ET

House Democratic leaders will allow an up-or-down vote on an amendment blocking any money in its healthcare overhaul from funding abortions, risking the votes of members who support abortion rights.

Anti-abortion Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) had told a bleary-eyed Rules committee panel that a deal struck earlier in the day to move forward on the issue was off.

“There was some compromise language from different proposals that we thought would be satisfactory, our understanding was that we had an agreement. Two hours later it was not an agreement,” Stupak said as the clock neared 1 a.m. Saturday.

Stupak, flanked by a bipartisan coterie of abortion opponents, argued for consideration of their amendment that explicitiy prohibits federal funding of abortions under the Democrats' healthcare bill before the Speaker's select committee.

Liberals on the committee threatened to vote against the final healthcare bill if it included Stupak’s language, warning that it would be a return to the days of back-alley abortions.

“I forsee a return to the dark ages,” said Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.). “I’m 73, I’ve seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die.”

Committee Vice-Chairman Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) presided over the panel while Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) hunkered down with Democratic leadership.

The three women committee members refrained from voting on the rule that was approved 6-4.

Slaughter, Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) and Chellie Pingree (Maine) were not present for the debate on Stupak's amendment.

“I used to think that life was black or white, but the older I get the most gray it becomes,” liberal Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) told the panelists.

“I find this amendment very, very uncomfortable.”

Freshman Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa.) responded that their amendment would not change the law on abortion.

“This doesn’t change the law at all, it’s not outlawing abortion today; a majority of abortions are paid for with cash,” she said.

But abortion-rights advocates, including the Speaker and a majority of the Democratic caucus, support a provision in the healthcare bill that would subsidize abortions for poor women who can’t afford them.

The agreement was quickly condemned by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which called the amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) a "de facto abortion ban."
 
"A vote for Rep. Stupak’s amendment is a vote to weaken women’s access to comprehensive reproductive care and to take away private benefits that women currently have," said Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards.
 
On Friday, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said passing Stupak's legislation could jeopardize passage of the bill, because abortion-rights supporters were likely to vote against a bill that includes it.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/66789-stupak-to-get-up-or-down-vote-on-amendment-to-block-abortion-funding

Comments (58)

You have to wonder what type of lawmaker would force an American taxpayer to become what many feel is an accessory to murder if they are forced to pay for what they feel is deeply wrong and a vey personal moral issue. Oh yeah, I forgot. Congress has no morals.BY JD Plus on 11/07/2009 at 02:27
There are so many things wrong with Pelosi's fraudulent bill, from abortion to health coverage for millions of illegal aliens that Obama had promised wouldn't be covered. I hope enough Democrats grow a spine and stop this monstrosity.BY Fred G. on 11/07/2009 at 02:36
HOW DOES *ANY* OF THIS SQUARE WITH OBAMA'S PROMISE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BEFORE CONGRESS?!?BY YEAH, UH on 11/07/2009 at 02:38
As an interesting aside, what would taxpayer funded abortions do to the First Amendment? As mentioned by JD, regardless of the fraction of a fraction, my money and yours alike would be spent on what I consider the killing of life.BY Larry Larry  on 11/07/2009 at 02:57
"As mentioned by JD, regardless of the fraction of a fraction, my money and yours alike would be spent on what I consider the killing of life."Interesting that your "concern" does not apply to the hundreds of thousands killed in Bush's Iraq War which you supported so vehemently.BY Mike on 11/07/2009 at 03:03
If the House Democratic leaders are going to allow an amendment on this, why won't they allow an amendment to close the huge loopholes that would allow illegal immigrants to get health coverage under the House plan? Need I remind them that according to Rasmussen Reports polling, 80% of voters oppose illegals getting coverage under health reform!!BY Joe  on 11/07/2009 at 03:16
"You have to wonder what type of lawmaker would force an American taxpayer to become what many feel is an accessory to murder if they are forced to pay for what they feel is deeply wrong and a vey personal moral issue."You mean like invading another country that had not attacked the US and killing hundreds of thousands of people? It seems most of the people opposed to allowing insurance premiums to pay for women's reproductive rights had no problem spending taxpayer money on that "deeply wrong and ve[r]y personal moral decision."Just an observation.BY An observer on 11/07/2009 at 04:07
It seems a few people here cannot stay on the subject of the healthcare bill. Frankly, there have been many things in all of history that many of us disagree with, but, when one discusses a particular issue, they should be ABLE to do so with that issue alone. Distracting from the issue at hand, is not legitimate discussion and is merely a diversion from the subject of this blog. Is a war one didn't agree with the ONLY input you have on the healthcare bill? Geez.BY JD Plus on 11/07/2009 at 04:24
Abortion is immoral. My son is adopted. Thank God there was no govenment provided money to help the biological mother abort him. Illegal Immigration is also immoral. We will have accomplished nothing if we do not take care of our citizens first. What about Americans who are unemployed and may have gone to bed hungry tonight?BY srlovelylady on 11/07/2009 at 04:52
If you want to keep abortion legal, you better keep our president in office. This was absolutely the right deal to make, if it gets us the votes. It doesn't make abortion illegal by any means, but if Sarah Palin is elected it will be.BY william Broughton on 11/07/2009 at 04:54

Add Comment

Name (required)

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

Your Comments

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.