Bart Stupak: 'There Will Be Hell To Pay' If My Amendment Is Removed

[AllentownJake]

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) is warning fellow Democrats not to mess with his restrictive anti-abortion amendment.

Pro-choice outrage was sparked by the inclusion of a provision in the House health care bill making it harder for private insurers to cover abortion. President Obama himself suggested that the language disrupted the status quo and should be taken out of the final legislation. Abortion rights supporters in Congress requested a meeting with the president next week to discuss the issue.

Now Stupak is saying he won't go easily.

"We won because need us," Stupak said. "If they are going to summarily dismiss us by taking the pen to that language, there will be hell to pay. I don't say it as a threat, but if they double-cross us, there will be 40 people who won't vote with them the next time they need us -- and that could be the final version of this bill."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/bart-stupak-there-will-be_n_355083.html

This amendment ain't coming out.

[Tesha]

1. Eat my shorts, Bart! (NT)

[Deja Q]

2. The democrats need him. Why does he need the democrats?

[malaise]

3. Fuck you

and The Family too Bart Stupid.

[JerseygirlCT]

4. Try us, Stupak. nt

[harkadog]

14. He already did and won.

[JerseygirlCT]

18. No, hasn't won yet

That's why his hissy fit on this.

The language can be removed from the bill - there's still the reconciliation with whatever bill the Senate votes on.

That's why he's attempting his little blackmail move here. And boy, I hope Pelosi gives him just what's coming to him.

[ProSense]

25. And people who should be opposing him are sending kudos his way.

It's disgusting.

[JerseygirlCT]

26. That it most definitely is. nt

[mike_c]

5. this threat is only worth losing sleep over because the progressive caucus...

...has already demonstrated their willingness to sell out their principles. All except Kucinich, of course.

[ProSense]

6. Stupak is full of shit.

His coalition will not remain intact, and his amendment will be stripped.

[AllentownJake]

7. We shall see

[ProSense]

29. Stupak is not going to be in the final bill

if it is to pass. There is no way on earth the Dems are going to set up to enter the next election cycle with progressives having to explain their vote. Not going to happen.

[AllentownJake]

30. Ben Nelson and Bob Casey are making noise now in the Senate

I'm sure old Evan Bayh wouldn't mind the amendment in Indiana.

How do you remove a provision that passes both the Senate and the House.

[ProSense]

33. The same way you get a public option passed,

which most people couldn't figure out, but it happened.

[saracat]

13. i hope you are right but i wouldn't bet the farm on it.And apparently, according to some

on DU birth control, pap smears and well visits for women are also not covered in the health plan. The fact that this amendment passed is in itself a disgrace and the fact that the other issues are even having to be discussed shows how retrogvressive we actually are.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. Looks like the Stupak amendment is here to stay.

Unfortunately.

[LaydeeBug]

9. oh bullshit. He's going down. nt

[AllentownJake]

10. Yes because the party fought so hard to keep it out of the bill in the first place

:rofl:

[robinlynne]

11. umm. he doesn't get to vote on it again. It is not his call.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. The Dem leadership is soft like silly putty

They will fold and the amendment will remain intact.

[AllentownJake]

19. Yes he does

The conference report must be approved by both the members of the House and Senate.

[harkadog]

22. umm. He does

After the Senate passes a bill it will go to conference and the two bills merged. The House will then get to vote on it again.

[Walk away]

12. Where are the "home grown" terrorists when you really need them? n/t

[BootinUp]

15. Is this the bastard, that made a dirty deal and didn't even

deliver the votes he promised?

I think so,

go F yourself Stupak.

[Selatius]

16. I wish the Progressive Caucus was this belligerant when it came to a competitive Public Option. nt

[MerryBlooms]

20. It's not coming out?

Fuck you Stupak and your ilk you slime around with.
You deserve to be run out on a rail and btw, NEVER underestimate the power of the women in this country.

Time to take this bastard and all the others who side with him, OUT of office.

[saracat]

21. K + r This is blackmail, as I said before. Why is this tolerated, or don't we actually care?

Do we seriously just think that women are collateral damage to satisfy politcal expedience?

[WeDidIt]

23. Fine, Rep. Stupak

If it's hell to pay it's hell to pay and you will be personally responsible for killing health care reform.

It won't be fun being the most reviled human being in the nation.

Stupak is coming out or the bill dies any way.

[Nikki Stone1]

24. What would be nice is if there had been "hell to pay" for Stupak this week

Like if the Democrats had actually punished him instead of going down on their kneepads for him.

[Old and In the Way]

27. Another politician who knows less than he thinks he does.

Hey Burt...guess what? You are far less important to the Democratic causcus than you think you are.

[Sultana]

28. Bitch plz!

[FLyellowdog]

31. Didn't the double-cross already take place?

Just exactly how many votes did he deliver to get the bill passed? I thought almost all of his YES on the amendment votes subsequently voted no for the bill. :shrug:

[clear eye]

34. Yeah. How many times does he think he can NOT deliver the same votes? n/t

[SoCalDem]

32. 213,216 people in Michigan "gave" us Bart Stupak

:grr:

[Kaleva]

41. And a majority of them were women.

I'd have to look it up again but I believe Stupak has gotten the majority of the woman vote in his district since '92.

[Bitwit1234]

35. Tell me one thing

did we the people elect Stupak to do our bidding, or did he just jump into a representatives seat and from then on do what he wants to do. He is a public servant. His salary is paid by US. He should work for US. He is doesn't think he can vote for something he doesn't like. Then tell his a** to resign and let someone who will do the peoples' bidding have the seat.

[AllentownJake]

36. He's from a rural area of MI

he's doing the people's bidding of that Seat in Michigan.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. True, but there's no need to grandstand about it

If he wants to be anti-choice and vote anti-choice then I can tolerate that. But you don't throw wedge issue amendments into the most important legislation in this congress. That's just being a grandstanding prima donna.

[MelissaB]

40. This is a fairly conservative area, but I'm not.

I'm still learning the lay of the land here. I'd expect this shit in Alabama, but I thought I was moving to a "blue state." Grrr!

[AllentownJake]

44. Shit I'm in PA

The Eastern side has nothing in common with the Western side and the people in the middle are just coming out of the 19th century.

[Kaleva]

49. It's only blue because of Detroit and Flint.

Much of the state is red or purple.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

42. What do the polls say among Democrats in his district?

How many are pro-choice and how many anti? Any idea?

[Kaleva]

45. Don't know but this may tell you something.

Bush won almost all the counties of Upper Michigan (which makes up the northern part of Stupak's district) in 2000 and 2004.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

50. Well if it's a Republican district, then I understand Stupak's position

He's representing his people. But what about the vast majority of Democrats in the Congress? Is it fair to their constituents who overwhelmingly support choice to force them to accept this anti-choice legislation? Should the party be held hostage just to satisfy the right-leaning constituents of one man's district? I wouldn't expect Stupak to support a bill that goes against the wishes of his constituents. But I think Pelosi should have taken him to task and forced him to not author and introduce this legislation, if he expects any party support in his re-election (if it's a conservative district, it just may go back into Republican hands anyway). Why should a man out of step with most of his party be the author of this kind of controversial legislation? It looks to me as though he's just looking for a piece of legislation to take back to his district voters to claim a victory in order to get re-elected. He's looking out for his own career and not playing on the team. Let him vote against the entire bill if he wants, but that could also involve serious consequences for him with his voters. Why wasn't he very heavily leaned upon by the party leadership? Who's running this party?

[Kaleva]

53. He's been in office almost 20 years and his views are well known.

Stupak isn't out of step with most of the party. I read in another thread where a poster provided a link to an article which stated that Stupak votes the party line 96% of the time. Being a devout Catholic, his views on abortion, birth control and the death penalty are life long principles and he doesn't compromise on them.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

57. I'm not referring to other issues

I'm saying he's way, way out of step with the Democratic Party on the issue of choice. Since he holds a minority view on this issue, the party leaders should never have allowed him to introduce this piece of legislation.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

61. It's true....

An inconvenient truth, perhaps, but it is true:

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Voted YES on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)

Voted YES on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)

Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)

Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)

Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination. (Jan 2009)

Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)

Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)

Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)

Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)

Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)

Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)

[sakabatou]

37. Fuck off, ass-hat

[keroro gunsou]

39. at the risk of quoting the master

bitch please. what can stupak do? hold his breath til he turns blue in the face and passes out?

[spanone]

43. get ready bart, it's coming out.

[Canuckistanian]

46. Ooooo, the Wrath of Bart

Bring it on, "Family Guy"

[bobbolink]

47. Actually, I'm not that upset with this amendment.

Let more affluent women have to live with what poor women have been living with.

Equality!

[boston bean]

51. oh god, did you really mean this?

[bobbolink]

52. Do you really mean that you affluent people shouldn't have to be bothered to think

about how the law has affected poor women all these years?

It really is all about YOU, isn't it?

yup, maybe its damned time for the shoe to be on the other foot for a change.

If that is the only thing that will open your eyes to consider us as sisters, then bring it on.

[PVnRT]

59. LOL. You think this will affect affluent women at all?

For one, they could afford the "rider" if they want it. Two, they could pay for it out-of-pocket otherwise.

[bobbolink]

70. So, the women who are screaming about this are no more affluent that women on medicaid?

Thank you soooo much for laughing at those you consider beneath you.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bobbolink]

75. Oh, I must have misunderstood. What is it that LOL stands for?

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spanone]

63. get real. affluent woman have ALWAYS had access to abortions...

[UTUSN]

48. SCARE me, dude, SCARE me!1 n/t

[Odin2005]

54. Oh, go fuck yourself, Stupak!

:rant:

[tavalon]

55. There will be hell to pay if the amendment stays in

You know what else, Stupak? You are going to be primaried and the person we run will be pro-choice and we will get rid of you or at least make you pay through the nose. Mark my words.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

62. And then we'll get a Republican in the district....

...because either a) the NARAL candidate will falter in that district during the general if he/she wins the primary or b) even if Stupak wins the primary, a bitter primary will discourage Democrats giving the Republicans a distinct advantage. And then you'll be switching from a representative who votes with the Democrats 96.2% of the time to one who votes with the Democrats 30% of the time. All over a single issue.

[tavalon]

65. We already do

The D means nothing after that man's name.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

67. Have you seen his voting record, per chance?

Just curious....

[tavalon]

69. Actually, no

But he stepped over the line on this one.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

72. He has a 96.2% party voting record.

Includes:

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Voted YES on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)

Voted YES on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)

Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)

Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)

Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination. (Jan 2009)

Voted YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)

Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)

Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)

Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts. (Mar 2007)

Voted NO on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (Oct 2008)

Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)

Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)

[tavalon]

73. Well, then, it's too bad he fucked up so royally with this vote

He'll still be primaried.

[kentuck]

56. Hell to pay?

I am for defeating Stupak. It doesn't matter who replaces him.

[ellie]

64. I'd rather have

a repuke who acts like a repuke than a democrat who acts like a repuke. At least you know what you are getting.

[PVnRT]

58. Shutup, Bart

Hopefully, Emanuel will have the guts to go after Democrats who vote down the bill simply because his idiotic amendment got stripped out.

Oh, wait, this is Rahm we're talking about. Never mind.

[rucky]

60. Nice setup. Blue Dogs kill the bill & progressives get the blame. n/t

[bullwinkle428]

68. If he digs in his heels, blow the lid off his C Street connection!

[Le Taz Hot]

74. There will be hell to pay if it stays.

The Republicans and milquetoast Democrats who voted for this POS don't seem to have a clue about the backlash that is coming their direction. Between throwing the GBLT community AND women under the bus, they'll have no one left but the corporatists. Good luck in winning elections with just them as your base.

[liberal_at_heart]

76. dang and he isn't even a republican

I knew once we refused to fight for real healthcare reform the republicans would have us by the throat. Looks like the conservative democrats have us by the throat as well.