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)

I wonder what the people in Burt Stupak's district want? Do they want the healthcare bill with the abortion funding or without?Too many of these politicians are forgetting who they work for and are catering to the special interests.I am not in support of abortion, but I don't think defunding it is the answer either.BY Saint Augustine on 11/07/2009 at 05:19
I am unable to grasp the concept how federal funding for abortion (in 2013) affects women's rights.As with many of the" ills" the politically correct would like to put back on those who practice certain behaviors such as smoking— this getting pregnant is in fact a completely preventable event. Your decision to terminate— your cost. Is it federally funded today? Is this practice usually funded in a standard health insurance policy? I really do not know the answer to that question but my gut would tell me no. If the purpose is to bring health plans into parity then including this practice would step over the bounds of this. But it goes along with many of the irresponsible behaviours that inevitably surround this— free daycare, free breakfast, free lunches, section 8 housing. It is simply another example of the "nanny" state we are fast becoming.BY Granite Stater on 11/07/2009 at 05:54
The question is whether or not the American taxpayer should be forced to pay for someone elses abortion because that is what is happening in the healthcare bill. Unfortunately we cannot opt out of taxes as a consciencious objector even though those same taxses will pay for abortions.BY JD Plus on 11/07/2009 at 06:06
The moderate Dems better take into consideration the 80% of voters that do not want illegal aliens to participate in any healthcare plan and either put language in the bill to totally prohibit any participation of illegal aliens or be voted out in 2010.BY tiredofit on 11/07/2009 at 06:58
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********** *************** *****Well if they lost their jobs and still have any assets that they accumulated while working left they will not qualify for any help until they sell off everything they own. However their children will thanks to SCHIP which the Dems are going to cancel. Yes, with the Dem plan the illegal aliens will be able to participate in the plan. When Obama stood up in Congress and told America that Illegal Aliens would not be allowed to participate in the plan he wasn't talking about the "Pelosi Plan" he was referring to his "imaginary plan". People need to listen carefully to every word Obama saids because where he is concerned they are not "Just Words" as the author of that speech Patric DeVol said. Obama's words are always followed by "qualifying statements" I said this, BUT I ALSO said this. Notice that sentence he constantly uses?BY tiredofit on 11/07/2009 at 07:20
This is what happens when you rush through things. Nothing comes out right, things are missed and confusing. Hurry, hurry is the democratic way of doing things. Not the right thing, but their way. Forcing something on the American people that they do not want, instead of taking care of the real problems of health care. No TORT reform, no real fraud removal plan. Same old, same old and who benefits, not the American people they continue to pay and pay more. Even the people on the hilll are not obligated to have this type of ihealth care, they excluded themselves.BY retired nurse on 11/07/2009 at 07:49
"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 03:03What an idiotic statement! The men and women in our nations military are there by choice and have accepted the risk of death. The abortion or murder of an unborn child is taking a human life without consent. The selfish mother rules!! But that has been the progressive mantra forever. "If it feels good do it!" No moral guidance. How many scientists and researchers were murdered? Was the person that was going to cure cancer aborted?No amount of rhetorical mumbo jumbo can justify the pro-murder position of a selfish mother. And I don't mean in the case of rape and incest which is always thrown in the soup, they can be adopted also.BY Kevin on 11/07/2009 at 08:10
Just a reminder to you Congressman pelosi-obamacare would fine a baby not signing up for pelosi-obamacare a fine of $15,000 and 5 years in prison. Is this constitutional in our great nationf. i don't think so kill pelosi-obamcare-abortion healthcare now and start over. "redstate""Friday night, prosecutors in the case of The United States v. William Jefferson (D-LA) issued a memorandum recommending a prison sentence of 27 to 33 years for the former congressman from New Orleans, consistent with Federal sentencing guidelines. Such a long sentence is justified, according to the memo, by the severity of the crimes, flight risk, and the possibility of hidden assets.Anything approaching the recommended punishment would be the longest sentence ever meted out on given to a U.S. Congressman. "BY jake2 on 11/07/2009 at 08:12
I do not want to pay for the murder of babies and that is what abortion is.I should decide where my money goes not this culture of death government and woman out here that just can't keep their legs closed.If you were healthy enough to get pregnant then what happened between that exciting night and now.Oh I know you don't want to be PUNISHD WITH A BABY so you can contrue to have more exciting nights.Well I guess as long as your mother didn't kill you that's ok now it's kill all the others.GOD WILL SAY ONE DAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.BY Determined on 11/07/2009 at 08:56
10.2 per cent of Americans out of work real BY waterstradt on 11/07/2009 at 09:08
It looks like a Dem implosion, the party of mass ideologies, the party of chaos, the party that lacks principle and moral character, the party that its only concern is to pass its agenda, the party of the elitists, the party that likes corporations only if they run them, basically, the un-American Party!If the House votes this bill through then they have gone against the will of the majority of Americans. It’s shameful.BY SCforG on 11/07/2009 at 09:40
Leave the provision in the bill so the bill itself will be aborted.BY higgins1990 on 11/07/2009 at 10:03
Determined said,*** "I do not want to pay for the murder of babies and that is what abortion is.I should decide where my money goes not this culture of death government and woman out here that just can't keep their legs closed.I" ***Send me your address, Determined," and I'll clip a small sliver off of a penny and refund "your money". ***GOD WILL SAY ONE DAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH." **** You're right there …And, until he does, I'm sure He's big enough to handle the problem without DETERMINED's or any other abortion wacko's intervention.BY Truthfulterry on 11/07/2009 at 10:12
If abortion is a "private benefit" as Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards says… then the "public" We the People can not be forced to pay for it! I will NOT pay for babies to be murdered!BY Janet Barnes on 11/07/2009 at 10:53
Besides the fact that abortion in this country kills a US citizen protected by our constitution (proved by the Fact that a person that kills a pregnant woman is charged with a Double Homicide) It Is Elected Surgery! Since when is elected surgery (like a nose job) covered by insurance?!? And I second JD stay on subject.BY Richard Dow on 11/07/2009 at 11:08
It really make me feel funny when liberals have to go back yo attach George Bush or Sarah Palin, they have nothing to do woth this debate. The debate about funded abortion by our goverment threw our taxes is un constitutional, The whole health plan is un constitutional.You liberals feel it is right that someone should go to jail if someone does not want healthcare. Or that bussiness people should go out of business because they can not afford to pay for it.I think Abortion is terrible, but it is lawso there is nothing I can do about it. But I will not pay forit.Maybe you stupid liberals could take up a collection.Killing a baby is not right.I got a idea and this is what I would pay for. The person who gets the abortion should also die, like the baby they just killed.BY James Walsh on 11/07/2009 at 11:24
There is no gray area where murder is concerned! Either you choose to take a life or you do not. No government has the right to give permission to murder, we can see how it worked for the Nazi's and its very clear we are on our way. There is nothing liberal about murder it is just wrong, unless of course you don't want to listen to God and the Ten Commandments. Not being able to talk about them, post them or profess your belief in them is well on its way to killing more than babies. IN GOD WE TRUST! IN POLITICIANS ,WELL NOT SO MUCH. All politicians that support abortion should be aborted! If they are true believers gee, what a statement that would make.BY rick on 11/07/2009 at 11:47
women have freedom of choice.they can choose to abstain from sex,they can choose birth control pills,they can choose to use condoms,they can choose to use the day after pill,they can choose to have their babies adopted.why with all these choices do they choose murder of an unborn fetus ?BY confused on 11/07/2009 at 11:47
If the republicans just vote agains the stupak amendment they can assure the defeat of the entire measure. It is a sham anyway and pelosi is gaming Stupak and his useful dupes anywayBY Earl on 11/07/2009 at 11:51
Comments about "Bush's War" are getting very tired. We didn't ask for or start this war. The real issue here is the death culture promoted by the abortionists. They have no regard for the life of unborn (or the newborn for that matter). With this bill, the elderly and disabled are next. Rep Stupak and his colleagues are doing the right thing to stand against this bill.BY Michael on 11/07/2009 at 11:58

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.