Schakowsky: I Pledge To Vote Against Bill With Anti-Abortion Amendment

[babylonsister]

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/schakowsky-i-pledge-to-vote-against-bill-with-anti-abortion-amendment/

Schakowsky: I Pledge To Vote Against Bill With Anti-Abortion Amendment


Further deepening the split among Dems over abortion, a well-respected House liberal is now publicly pledging to vote against any health care reform bill containing an anti-abortion amendment, a move that will make it tougher for other liberals not to follow suit.

Dem Rep. Jan Schakowsky’s office confirms to me that she won’t back the bill if it contains the Stupak amendment, a measure that would drastically scale back the availability of abortion, which many insurance plans now offer.

Some 41 House Dems have signed a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowing a No vote on a bill with Stupak, but it’s not known who the signatories are. Schakowsky’s office confirmed that she’d signed the letter — and since her voice carries weight with House liberals, it could embolden others to publicly make the same commitment.

“If left as is the health care reform bill would be the largest repeal of anti-choice laws in nearly four decades,” Schakowsky said in a statement emailed my way. “I will continue to work with the Senate and the Conference Committee to make the bill acceptable, but cannot and will not support health care reform that blatantly discriminates against women.”

It’s worth noting again that it will be much tougher for pro-choice liberals to back down on this one than it was for progressives to accept the less-robust public option. In the public option fight, liberals could say they secured something; by contrast, Stupak is a significant step backward.

The White House and Dem leadership know pro-choice liberals won’t be able to accept Stupak as is, which is why the president is alreadly signaling that Stupak will be seriously revised. By going public, Schakowski is signaling to other pro-choice Dems to stand firm heading into conference negotiations with the Senate, so that they retain real leverage.

[The Magistrate]

1. Good For Representative Schakowsky, Ma'am!

This abomination must be stripped from the Bill.

[robinlynne]

2. time for the liberals to start filibustering. and I mean talking, debating,

speaking the truth. We just had 8 years of bullshit on a platter. Time for Democrats to be Democrats!!!!

[FBaggins]

3. Sooooo... there are more than enough liberals to kill it

if the amendment is there.

And there are more than enough "moderate" Democrats to kill it is it isn't there.

Does this mean that it's time to move on to something else?

[The Magistrate]

4. No, Sir, It Means The Right Must Bend, and Not Use This As Pretext To Extend Abortion Restrictions

[FBaggins]

7. That's nice as far as it goes... but

what do we think the chances of that are?

Wouldn't it be great if every time one side lacked the votes for something they REALLY wanted... they could just say that it was time for the other side to "bend"???

I'm all for spin, btw... but I don't get how this "extends" abortion restrictions? Is there something in the amendment that goes beyond the new health options?

[noiretextatique]

9. it's a really awful amendment...bad law

there is a thread here about the amendment...i will look for a link.

[The Magistrate]

10. Yes, Sir, There Is

The effect of the amendment is to pretty much remove insurance coverage for the most common medically necessary class of abortions. It not only prohibits companies covering abortion in policies sold to people receiving Federal subsidies, it prohibits the offer of policies covering abortion in the insurance exchange, whether to people receiving subsidies or not. Companies will therefore either drop coverage, or price it beyond reach of most. While no more than one in eight abortions is covered by insurance, these are mostly abortions involving grossly malformed or dying fetuses, and do not fall under strict reading of 'threat to the life of the mother'. Further, coverage of treatment for miscarriages will likely be compromised, since this can often involve the same procedures employed for abortion.

The right must bend or be steam-rolled by the leadership on this. Those Democrats who voted for the abominable amendment, and then voted against the Bill, have demonstrated they will not hold to any bargain struck: they cannot be dealt with, or given the slightest concession.

[FBaggins]

14. Are you saying that it removes coverage

even from those private policies that currently cover abortion? If so that may provide a wedge for rebutals... but it sounds easier for them to close it (by removing language that impacts current plans) than it is for us to craft a majority. I seriously doubt that many who are up in arms over the amendment will be satisfied that this small change is enough.

The right must bend or be steam-rolled by the leadership on this.

If adding them to the number of Republicans makes them the majority... who does the steam-rolling? The "leadership" (sic) needs to get something through or they may not be leaders for long... who drives the debate?

Those Democrats who voted for the abominable amendment, and then voted against the Bill, have demonstrated they will not hold to any bargain struck: they cannot be dealt with, or given the slightest concession.

With respect... isn't that a recipe for becoming the minority?

[The Magistrate]

15. If That Language Is Removed, Sir, We Are Back To Rep. Capp's Language, In The Bill Since August

No one on our side is trying an end-around of the Hyde amendment, odious as it is; the other side is trying to extend Hyde under gloss of 'safe-guarding' it.

People who will not abide by their word cannot be trusted in future, and must be written off. It is not a question of ideology, or left or right. When you name your price, receive your payment, then fail to deliver the goods, in many circles you end up in the trunk of a burning car, and properly so.

[FBaggins]

17. I've just read Capp's language...

...how does it not run an "end around"?

As I read it, the only thing keeping federal funds from paying for abortions in subsidized plans is one of those "fungible" tricks. We give you money and you pay for abortions... but you have to certify that you aren't using the specific dollars that we gave you in order to pay for them.

It's simply too easy to spin that as "tax dollars paying premiums on plans that pay for abortion".

Is there no middle ground between this and a program that removes abortion coverage from existing insurance plans?

People who will not abide by their word cannot be trusted in future, and must be written off.

Was there really anyone who gave such a word or is that interpretation? If I say I won't vote for a bill without a public option... does that mean that ANY bill WITH such an option will be supported? Could there not be people who felt that the amendment improved the bill, but wanted six other amendments as well?

[The Magistrate]

18. You Mis-Understand The Situation, Sir

All health insurance, or just about all of it provided by employers, is already subsidized by the tax break, in which, though a real good, the policy price is not taxed as income. The intent of the Hyde amendment was to prevent Federally funded programs, such as Medicaid, from paying for abortions: this is grotesquely bad social policy on several grounds, but a settled question for better of worse. It should not be expanded to the entire insurance market because some subsidy is givem to persons to enable them to afford premiums. The 'fungibility' of money is ignored in numerous other contexts, and has no honest place here.

Stupak said he had forty representatives pledged to vote against the Bill without the amendment, and to vote for it with the amendment. Over half that list reneged. Those people should have no committee assignments, recieve not one dime to their districts above general appropriations, see n legislation they propose advance even into a committee hopper, be cut dead in the cafeteria, and exposed or outed by the whores they resort to in off hours....

If that sounds extreme, Sir, so be it. There are limits.

[FBaggins]

19. I'll take another look... but on first glance

it looks more like Stupak misrepresented what he had rather than a couple dozen Democrats going back on their word.

Even MORE likely is the simple fact that we don't know how many of them WERE willing to vote for it but were given cover by Pelosi (and I have no problem with that). "Close" votes often aren't all that close in reality. She may have had a dozen or more votes in her pocket from members who would LIKE to avoid paying the supposed price for supporting the bill, but were willing to do so if necessary.

[dionysus]

5. good. nip that shit in the bud

[OHdem10]

6. Will they be able to hold strong when others in party try to shame

them by saying? Are you going to be known in history as the
one/s who stopped HCR???? The Media will do likewise, so will
the GOP.

It might be more fair to ask the Pro Lifers --Are you willing
to stop Health Care Reform over Abortion???

Mark my word, it will be the Progressives who are expected to
roll over.

[kelly1mm]

8. The progressives will fold just like THEY ALREADY DID!

They voted for this to move forward with the Stupac amendment attached on Saturday. What makes you think they would not vote for the final bill with the Stupac language intact?
Further, if you loose the Stupac amendment you lose 40-60 House Democratic members anyway and the bill fails.

The Speaker can count and she has all the proof she needs to believe the progressives will fold.

Ask yourself this - if you were the speaker and had two letters, one from 40 progressives threatening to vote against the bill if Stupac is in and one from 40 blue dogs threatening to vote against the bill if Stupac is out, which threat would you take more seriously?

[tekisui]

11. knr!~

[Forkboy]

12. K&R for Schakowsky.

:kick:

[SPedigrees]

13. Wonderful, a bunch of Senators as helpful as Kucinich. The left is as much a threat to HCR as the RW

Abortion services, birth control and HRT are all affordable for even the lowest income bracket. No one has gone into bankruptcy paying for these health care needs. Sure Schakowsky, you and your buddies vote to kill HCR over govt payment for one of the few truly affordable health care services that, by the way, govt has NEVER paid for.

Admirable? I think not. Nor will any of you if health care reform is defeated over this issue and your insurance co denies payment for treatment or drops you altogether when you find yourself stricken with a catastrophically expensive illness.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. As I mentioned in a similar thread, this cannot end well.

Think about it....

a) Stupak remains in the final conferenced bill, and these 40 House Members vote no as a result. Bill fails.

b) Stupak is removed from the final conferenced bill, those who voted for the initial Bill post-Stupak (Mind you, I'm not talking about the ones who voted for the Stupak amendement and then against the bill here) vote no as a result. Bill fails.

The only option is to try again next session. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Then, what could happen regardless of a) or b) is that angry abortion rights advocates attempt to primary-out the Stupak voters (which it bears noting that many of them have solid Democratic voting records) with the NARAL reps of their choosing, and regardless of whether its the Stupak voter or the NARAL candidate, whoever the Democratic nominee in the general will likely be substantially weakened. Seat goes to a Republican, the Democratic majority is reduced, if not eliminated, and good luck trying to pass any type of meaningful health care reform at that point. Forget single payer, we won't even be able to get a public option on the table at that point.

The only real logical thing to do is keep Stupak in, hopefully the final bill will pass the House and Senate, and then in subsequent sessions if opponents of the Stupak amendment want to remove it from the law, they can go about doing so at that point.