Clyburn: Stupak Amendment Netted About 10 Votes

[democracy1st]

Run time: 01:26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VjPVAD5e0g   Posted on YouTube: November 11, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 13, 2009 By DU Member: democracy1st Views on DU: 859

 
Boxer: Senate Has Votes To Block Stupak Amendment


One of Congress's foremost champions of abortion rights said on Monday that the Senate did not have the votes to add a more restrictive anti-abortion amendment to health care reform legislation.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that 60 votes would be needed to strip the current health care bill of its abortion-related language and replace it with a version resembling that passed by the House of Representatives on Saturday. And, in an interview with the Huffington Post, the California Democrat predicted that pro-choice forces in the Senate would keep that from happening.

"If someone wants to offer this very radical amendment, which would really tear apart compromise, then I think at that point they would need to have 60 votes to do it," Boxer said. "And I believe in our Senate we can hold it."

"It is a much more pro-choice Senate than it has been in a long time," she added. "And it is much more pro-choice than the House."

Boxer's reading of the political landscape might seem like the hopeful spin of an abortion-rights defender. But it was seconded by a another lawmaker, Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)

"It would have to be added," sad the Montana Democrat of an amendment that mirrored that offered Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) in the House. "I doubt it could pass."

Speaking days after House Democrats helped pass the Stupak provision -- which would greatly restrict private insurers from covering abortion -- Boxer and Baucus's proclamations are undoubtedly music to the ears of pro-choice activists. President Obama, likewise, stressed during an interview with ABC News Monday night that he would like to see the Stupak amendment changed before a final version of health care legislation is produced.

In making her argument, Boxer described the provision as inherently prejudiced, as well as bad policy and unfair politics. The Stupak amendment, she said, would deny women access to "a legal medical procedure" even if she agrees to pay for it with private funds (a supplemental policy would have to be purchased to cover abortion).

"In all my years in politics, this is what it's been like," Boxer said. "This is the way it is. It always amazes me. The leading voices always, since I've been in Congress, have always been males. And that is one of the reasons why I think it is so important to have more women. Not that every woman is pro-choice. It is not true. But most of the women are."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/boxer-senate-has-votes-to_n_352064.html

[Mithreal]

1. Then name the 10

[bjobotts]

2. But 39 voted against, though many were told they could since it had enough votes to pass

[bjobotts]

3. The 10 cannot be named until C-Street releases their children

[sabrina 1]

4. They did not allow Weiner's amendment or the Conyers/Kucinich's

amendment, both of which would have added a strong public option to the bill. I wonder how many votes they lost as a result of that. I have read some of the statements of the 39 who voted 'no' and some of them stated that they wanted a strong public option which was not in the bill.

It's hard to do the math without knowing how many votes were lost because of a) the watered down PO and b) the Stupak amendment. There were 39 'no' votes. 24 of them were Blue Dogs. 28 Blue Dogs voted for the bill. And one Republican. I wonder how many of those Blue Dogs would have voted for the bill without the Stupak Amend. And then how many with a strong PO.

With a strong public option in the bill I think they would have lost a few Blue Dog votes, but might have picked up quite a few more of the 39 who voted 'no'.

It just seems that when there was a choice, they went for the Stupak Amendment to find the votes, rather than the PO. Easier to toss women's rights than the fundies it seems.

And now, rather than focusing on a strong PO, the focus is on this amendment. Nice play by the anti-real-Health-Care reform crowd. You would almost think that the Private Ins. Industry was working with the fundies on this.

[Bitwit1234]

5. I do not understand this damn it...

If a senator is against abortion AND his state is for it, he has not choice but to vote not to ban abortion. If he does anything else he should be forced to resign. HE IS A PUBLIC SERVANT AND MUST DO THE PUBLIC'S BIDDING. I am sick as heck of these senators saying in all good conscience.
When they were running for office did they tell the public, "I don't care what you want when I get in office I am going to do what the heck I want"..no no no or they wouldn't have gotten elected. I think it is high time the public held them accountable for the mess they are making. Throw em out, even if they are supposed to be a Democrat.