Senator Barbara Boxer on the Stupak amendment

[ProSense]

Stupak approach “radical” and “unfair to women”

November 10th, 2009 by Lucas

Late Saturday night, the House of Representatives passed a landmark healthcare reform bill. Just before, though, an amendment was added that, as CNN explains, “prohibits abortion coverage in a government-run plan, and in private plans that accept anyone using government subsidies to buy insurance coverage.” One of the goals of health care reform is to provide more affordable, quality health care coverage. This provision in the House bill could actually reduce the health care coverage many Americans now have.

Senator Boxer has been an unequivocal supporter of free choice her entire career, and raised major objections to the amendment when speaking with CNN, calling the legislation “radical” and “unfair to women,” before continuing:

“We want to make sure we don’t deny women the opportunity to avail themselves of a totally legal procedure,” Boxer told CNN in a phone interview. “We believe this is unfair to women, it singles them out as a group. There is no other procedure in this bill that is denied.”

Senator Boxer has long been recognized as one of the Senate’s strongest leaders in the fight to protect a woman’s right to choose and to expand reproductive health services, and the Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it painfully clear that the fight continues. While two proudly anti-choice candidates duke it out in the Republican Senate primary, Senator Boxer remains on the front lines fighting to make sure that anti-choice forces do not chip away at a woman’s right to choose.

See this is why I believe the Stupak amendment will not be in the final bill. There are key elections next year. Democrats have a choice. They can pass health reform without the Stupak amendment and enter the election cycle in a position of strength or they can pass it with Stupak and spend the campaign explaining their vote.

[AllentownJake]

1. If there was a united Democrartic Party I'd agree with you

In reality the Democratic Party is a loose federation of Not-Republican.

[ProSense]

2. That doesn't affect the choice facing them. n/t

[AllentownJake]

4. Yes it does

The entire reason Stupak was in the House Bill was 2010.

[ProSense]

5. No, it really doesn't

You forget that where there is a will, there is a way. Stupak was simply to get the bill passed in the House now.

[AllentownJake]

8. You open the barn door

you have to close it.

You still need a Senate Bill, which looks like isn't coming till 2010 and than you still deed to have a vote on the conference bill.

Stupak flexed his muscle once, what makes you think he wouldn't do it again?

[ProSense]

10. "Stupak flexed his muscle once, what makes you think he wouldn't do it again?"

His coalition is weak, and there is now time to pressure them.

[AllentownJake]

11. Not really that weak

From all appearences they have been driving the agenda for a while now.

[ProSense]

14. Not at all

Stupak isn't as strong as you make him out to be. Remember the emphasis on Senator Snowe?

[AllentownJake]

15. I'm not holding my breath on the Senate

too many egos and personalities. Frankly, I would not be surprised for this bill to die there.

[LooseWilly]

26. The emphasis on Senator Snowe? As I read it, that was to give "cover" to the likes of Stupak.

Without Snowe's vote, the Stupaks & such like assholes will need something else to use as "cover", to justify their support for HCR to the mouth breathers (& Health Care industry employees) amongst their constituencies... and Stupak's amendment is just the sort of "shit sandwich" that these "blue dog" types can use as "cover" later for a vote for HCR. If the amendment is pulled... then they lose their "cover"... and so, one would presume, to get any of them to vote for HCR (not that many of them did even after Stupak's amendment) ... some "arm twisting" will be necessary.

Hopefully the White House's "ninja pressure application" (you know, "invisible arm twisting, that is occurring despite any sign of it occurring") will prove more efficacious in the merging process, than it was during the House Bill vote... which required this awful amendment in the first place... presumably... because... the White House wanted to lull the Blue Dogs into a false sense of... empowerment... so that they won't realize that... Obama's rook is preparing to assault their bishop... by advancing the pawn of women's rights... knowing full well it would be slaughtered... just like the pawn of GLBT rights was...

Hmm... methinks there might be a few weak links in the implied theory that you may or may not be advancing. I have yet to see the Obama Administration apply any "arm twisting"... unless you count selling out the interests of a portion of their constituency to buy half-ass cooperation "arm twisting". And yet this seems to be the underpinning of your presupposition that assholes like Stupak aren't as strong as they seem?

[ProSense]

29. Snowe and Stupak? They're not even in the same chamber.

I mentioned Snowe because she was held up as the reason the bill Reid brought to the floor would include a trigger. That didn't happen.

[AllentownJake]

30. There is no bill on the Senate floor right now

No one knows what the fuck compromise is going to be made to open up debate.

[ProSense]

31. The merged Senate bill currently includes a public option.

That is the bill people were certain would not include a public option.

[AllentownJake]

32. The merged bill is not necessarily the bill that will open up Debate

like I said, no one knows what the compromise that will be maded to get the 60th vote to allow debate to start.

[ProSense]

34. Until it changes, the Senate bill includes a public option. n/t

[AllentownJake]

35. LOL

Speculating right now is worthless, somewhere in a back room somewhere it is being decided and I doubt that anyone on DU is aware of the discussions.

[ProSense]

37. There was nothing speculative about that comment: the current bill does include a public option. n/t

[AllentownJake]

38. That is like looking at campaign promises

Stop being a tool. Both of us know that the current bill isn't the bill that is going to be debated.

[ProSense]

41. "Stop being a tool." Can't resist the stupid argument, can you? n/t

[MNDemNY]

44. Spade-spade, and all that.

[MNDemNY]

42. Until it changes, the House bill strips women of hard fought rights.

[LooseWilly]

33. As AllentownJake points out... We don't know what's coming to the floor of the Senate.

So your dismissal of the "cover" issue of Snowe's vote is a little premature. The Stupak amendment seemed to me to pretty clearly be meant to be used as a political "cover" substitute for the "a Republican voted for it too" political cover that was meant to be offered to Blue Dogs.

So... if not Stupak's stupidity... would you care to offer some other prognostication as to what the new "cover" will be? Or are you going to argue that the Obama Administration is going to begin "twisting arms" more... forcefully?

[ProSense]

36. We do know that the current bill includes a public option

"So your dismissal of the 'cover' issue of Snowe's vote is a little premature. "

No, the point was that she was held up as the reason the current bill wouldn't include a public option.

[MNDemNY]

45. We also know that currrent house bill rolls back reproductive rights.

[LooseWilly]

47. You're suffering from "Policy Dyslexia" ProSense.

Snowe's vote was not held up as the reason that the current bull wouldn't include a public option. Not including the public option was "shopped" as an option to get Snowe's vote. You make it sound like the point was to not have a public option... whereas the obvious point was to go after Snowe's vote. And what was so important about Snowe's vote?... the "cover" it would then give to the Republican-Lite Blue Dog Democrats. Without that rationalization/"cover" for voting for any sort of HCR, the Republican-Lite Democrats now need another "cover" to peddle to their voters... and that's what the Stupak Amendment was Really About... until it dawned on people what the full consequences might be. Throw that amendment out... and something similarly toxic will "need" to be inserted to give the Republican-Lite Democrats "cover"... What Will It Be?

Or... the Obama Administration will have to go beyond the "Ninja"/invisible "arm-twisting"... to get something passed.

Given the trends I've seen... I'm thinking we'll see option A: insert some similarly toxic policy.

I can't wait to see how I will be offended next...

[ProSense]

48. "Not including the public option was "shopped" as an option to get Snowe's vote." You

are going on rumors. The fact is that a public option made it into the merged plan.

[LooseWilly]

52. AllentownJake has pointed out that the public option has not made it to a vote.

And has pointed out that the "merged plan" of which you speak is not being voted on.

I am indeed going on rumors. Rumors that make sense given the give and take of congressional politics. Snowe's vote was sought. Snowe didn't want a public option. Suggestion that the public option wasn't a dealbreaker was floated in the news. I do indeed draw the conclusion that the set of facts are all interrelated.

I see no scenario being drawn by you, or anyone else, to suggest otherwise.

The "merged plan" that you speak of is still in the "drawing board" stages, as AllentownJake has so clearly pointed out. Again, you have not provided any facts or rumors to gainsay this. Meanwhile, the Stupak amendment is the sort of tripe that will be eaten up by Conservatives who undoubtedly make up a block of the constituencies of the Republican Lite Democrats (Blue Dogs). You have breezily asserted both that the Stupak amendment will be pulled, and that the public option will be included. You don't even seem to feel obliged to provide rumors or analysis of rumors... or even potentially realistic scenarios by which this will happen... barring the insertion of some other toxic policy amendment which will satisfy the Republican Lite Constituencies of the Blue Dogs, or significant (and thusfar invisible) arm twisting by the White House.

The original House Bill did not include the Stupak amendment, yet it was there by the time the bill came up for a vote. The "merged plan" of which you speak may indeed include a public option... the question then is: What will be in the Senate Bill when it finally comes up for a vote. Blindered criticism of all who criticize what finally came of the House Bill is the sort of "enabling" that will allow something like the Stupak amendment, or potentially something even more onerous, to make it into the Senate Bill.

The question is: Do you care about the policy enacted? Or solely about the success of passing a bill (even if it is bad policy)?

[ProSense]

53. "AllentownJake"? What does that mean? The plan currently includes a public option

that's a fact, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

[LooseWilly]

54. The current plan is not what is going to be voted on.

... as was pointed out to you upthread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7003852&mesg_id=7004580

I do find it interesting that you aren't even paying any attention to the names of those with whom you are "discussing" this issue. Likewise, you don't seem to be listening to anything being said by those with whom you are "discussing" this issue. Not that it's anything new for you not to listen to or address issues being raised in a discussion... but I'd've thought you'd at least recognize allusions to points made in the same thread.

Silly me.

As for you assertion "The plan currently includes a public option that's a fact"... well, during Obama's campaign, the plan (currently at that time) explicitly precluded mandates. Now there are mandates. So you'll excuse me if the "plan" that is not yet up for a vote (and which AllentownJake, whose name you might want to remember henceforth, points out does not yet apparently have the votes for cloture) which you mention doesn't fill me with a great deal of confidence as far as the final Bill's content.

It would be different, perhaps, if I had the slightest indication that Reid and the Democrats in general showed some willingness to "go to the mat" and actually make the Republicans, and Joe Lieberman, go out on the floor and physically and vocally fillibuster... make them talk/read day and night if they really want to stop a vote... make them make C-SPAN interesting tv for the general population... make them fucking do it rather than just threaten it rather than cave on the public option. Show me a link that suggests that, and maybe I'll have the slightest inclination to believe your breezy assertions.

Otherwise, I'll assume that you are once again simply arguing the party line and trying to place all emphasis on some half-bone that is being talked about maybe being thrown to the progressives of the party... but which will evaporate in another week or two, as all the other half-bones you've staked your arguments on in the past have done.

[chimpymustgo]

60. +1. Every step of the way the Dems have coddled and capitulated to the EXTREMISTS.

This is crazy and stupid and a massive FAIL.

God, we sure fucked this up. Now, cue the invisible ninja/eleven-dimension chess playing bullshit brigade and its endless supply of excuses for ALWAYS leaving the base of this party SCREWN.

[robinlynne]

13. He has no say from here on out. his moment is over. It is now in other hands.

[AllentownJake]

16. Actually he does

The bill that comes out of conference committee requires a vote.

[Le Taz Hot]

58. Are you not aware that Ben Nelson,

DEMOCRAT from Nebraska, has vowed to add the same amendment into the Senate version?

[MNDemNY]

59. Thats Ok , so long as we pass SOMETHING!

[Toucano]

3. Loose federation of Not-Republican with a little Republican sprinkled on top. n-t

[AllentownJake]

6. It is a lot easier to be a moderate GOPer in the DNC

than to be one in the GOP these days.

[MNDemNY]

18. ProSense is just fine if the Stupak language is in the final bill.

[AllentownJake]

21. Well right now she's against it

She'll be for it if the bill passes, probably spin it as a cost containment.

It is a habbit of hers...

[MNDemNY]

23. Check this thread out. I think she is pretty clear, in an ambiguous way.lol

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8750159#8750171That

[BrklynLiberal]

7. This is who should be the Senate Majority Leader!!!!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

9. I'll second that

[BootinUp]

12. I can't hardly think of a time

that Boxer has dissapointed me.

[MNDemNY]

17. But you are OK with the Stupak Amendment.

You are but a shill.

[ProSense]

19. Don't be ridiculous. n/t

[MNDemNY]

20. So are you NOW saying that you will not support the HCR bill with the Stupak Language?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8750159#8750171That would be a change for you.

[kelly1mm]

22. It is what she didn't say. She did not say that she would

not vote for cloture/final passage/reconciliation for a Senate bill that had similar language to Stupac. Do you think Sen. Boxer will filibuster a bill if it has Stupac in it? I don't.

[MNDemNY]

24. ProSense would not want a filibuster,

[ProSense]

25. You have issues. n/t

[MNDemNY]

39. You have a problem with honesty.

[AllentownJake]

40. +1

[ProSense]

43. No you have a hard time dealing with reality. n/t

[MNDemNY]

46. The "reality " created by you and your co-horts?

the one that only exists for a "win" and a rose Garden signing ceremony? Yup, I've got a problem with that.

[AllentownJake]

49. +2

[ProSense]

50. It's like the blind leading the blind. n/t

[AllentownJake]

51. This thread for Pro

[MNDemNY]

56. You are the one being "led" and you seem ok with that.

Hence: Tool.

[Nikki Stone1]

27. Using my favorite Senator to back your wishful thinking is really sad, PNS

:(

[ProSense]

28. What? n/t

[Selatius]

55. I believe the Stupak Amendment would give more cover to right wing Democrats in the Senate.

With the Stupak Amendment in the bill, Blue Dogs and DLCers would have something even more to claim whenever they go back to their home districts. Without that, they just have the claim that they weakened the Public Option in the name of fiscal austerity.

They could easily calculate that liberals in the Senate would tolerate a poison pill rather than kill the whole bill with what little concessions they have gained from health insurance companies, that they will not filibuster the bill when the tire meets the road.

Whether or not that calculation is correct is another matter, but it's immaterial to the calculation being made...if it was made at all.

[Le Taz Hot]

57. Step down, Reid.

Once again, you've been out-classed by MY senator.