McCaskill: Senate Could Live With Stupak Amendment

[MarlaM]

Source: Huffington Post

11-9-09

Sen. Claire McCaskill, a pro-choice Democrat from Missouri, said on Monday that she didn't think a provision greatly restricting the ability of woman to access or pay for abortions would be enough to kill a Senate health care bill

Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", McCaskill was asked whether an amendment added by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) to the House's legislation would be too bitter a pill to pass the Senate.

"I am not sure that it is," replied the Missouri Democrat. "Obviously, I have been a pro-choice candidate for my entire political career, and obviously there is controversy always surrounding this issue. But we are talking about whether or not people that get public money can buy an insurance policy that has a coverage for abortion. And that is not the majority of America. The majority of America is not going to be getting subsidies from the government...."

"And so, I am not sure that this is going to be enough to kill the bill," McCaskill added. "And frankly, once again, this is another example of having to govern with moderates. We can't just turn our back on the fact that the reason we are in majority, is because states like Indiana, and Arkansas, and Louisiana, and Missouri, and North Carolina, and Virginia sent Democrats to the Senate."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/09/mccaskill-sena...

[Autumn]

1. Well good for them

[robinlynne]

2. but we can't.

[golddigger]

3. Unfuckingbelievable!

[Hepburn]

4. Geeeeeeeee, the post-menopausal females and the men in the Senate ....

...they can live without reproductive care. Well, I'll be damned, Claire.

BTW: Senator, got any women in your state who have NOT gone through menopause yet? The Stuuuu-Pecker Amendment might have some negative impact on them. Duh...

[EFerrari]

5. They'd be denying those funds to the women who most need them.

Privileged assholes.

[Hepburn]

7. Exactly...

....what a rotten world we live in that to get a fundamentally flawed bill passed so they can rah-rah pat themselves on the back, they fuck over those least able to help themselves.

[ehrnst]

6. I already emailed both Sens about this.

If they purport to address preventable deaths because of inability to pay for a medical procedure, then they need to address the Stupak Amendment - because it's denying payment for a procedure that is considered a standard of care for women.

Childbirth in a medical facility is just as much an "optional" procedure as abortion in a medical facility.

[Hepburn]

8. +1

[madrchsod]

9. ya think the house bill had problems

wait till you see what the insurance lobby will do the senate bill. people think pelosi did a bad job just wait till you see what reid does.

[Demeter]

10. This Woman Has Balls of Brass

How VERY unattractive and useless for her.

[villager]

11. Well of course they could. Welcome to "change," Democratic true believers!

n/t

[AzDar]

12. Jesus wept.

[Alcibiades]

13. She has a big problem with the public option,

let alone single-payer, but she's OK with this.

WTF?

[mvd]

14. McCaskill is a "moderate" herself

The people she is talking about are for the most part conservative Democrats. At least the public option is there (even if in limited form) - any more compromise and this would be a Blue Dog bill completely.

[seafan]

15. Claire McCaskill is what the pure betrayal of Democratic principles looks, sounds and feels like.

McCaskill: Senate Could Live With Stupak Amendment, November 9, 2009

Sen. Claire McCaskill, a pro-choice Democrat from Missouri, said on Monday that she didn't think a provision greatly restricting the ability of woman to access or pay for abortions would be enough to kill a Senate health care bill

Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", McCaskill was asked whether an amendment added by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) to the House's legislation would be too bitter a pill to pass the Senate.

"I am not sure that it is," replied the Missouri Democrat. "Obviously, I have been a pro-choice candidate for my entire political career, and obviously there is controversy always surrounding this issue. But we are talking about whether or not people that get public money can buy an insurance policy that has a coverage for abortion. And that is not the majority of America. The majority of America is not going to be getting subsidies from the government...."

.....

Read: *It's just a relatively few women this anti-abortion legislation would affect.*





This is absolutely VILE.



I am disgusted that you are sitting in the Senate, Ms. McCaskill. You have just sold out your gender.






Rachel Maddow: Evan Bayh and his "ConservaDem" coalition, March 19, 2009


McCaskill is a ConservaDem and this is what we should expect from them., August 11, 2009


McCaskill: 'It's a huge mistake to suggest that people against health care reform are manufactured.', August 12, 2009


Sen. Claire McCaskill: I'm Happy We're 'Handcuffing The Public Option', September 10, 2009



Contempt doesn't even begin to describe it.

[Sherman A1]

19. Too many times I have been critical of Senator McCaskill and then

poo - poo'ed on DU for stating my opinions.

Claire is not really what one would call liberal, she may not be a rabid RW conservative, but me thinks, she ain't liberal.

[Cass]

26. She turned me right off when she said she wouldn't leave her daughter alone in a room with Bill

Clinton. She made those remarks after Clinton campaigned for her. That was a classless below the belt comment imo.

[Beacool]

29. Hey, don't talk like that about the National Co-Chairperson of the Obama Campaign

[valerief]

16. F*ck McCaskill!!!! What a POS. nt

[depakid]

17. Earth to McCaskill- anti-aborttion extremists aren't "moderate."

And a LOT of us are sick and tired of being dictated to by Southern States.

[tonysam]

18. Of course it will because it is simply a reworking of the Hyde Amendment,

and whether we like it or not it is legal per the USSC. The federal government can deny subsidies to pay for abortions.

I don't see any real health care reform making it past the Senate anyway.

[sabrina 1]

20. Doesn't this violate the Constitution?

It creates two separate laws, based on class. I wonder if it would violate the 14th Amendment. Either it applies to the wealthy and the poor, or wouldn't it be discriminatory?

[Ter]

22. I doubt it

Kind of like how the wealthy pay a higher percentage of taxes, unless that violates the Constitution as well, since it discriminates based on class a bit.

[Thothmes]

24. No more so than the Hyde amendment

which is 30 years old or so. The current amendment does not prevent anyone from receiving an abortion if they choose to have on. It prevents federal money from being used. That is the way it has been for at least 3 decades. How did the poor get abortions under the Hyde Amendment.

[Hawkeye-X]

21. Remind McCaskill that not only Stupak amendment is stupid, it's also UNCONSTITUTIONAL

and will be immediately challenged in court. My suggestion? Strip out the fucking thing, and put in the HELP committee bill that Ted Kennedy helped craft.

Then you can all fight it out in conference. My suggestion? Strip Stupak's committee assignments and appoint him to the Committe of Completely Useless Assholes That Will be Soon Ejected in 2010 that you can ignore. Include Rep. Bachmann in that committee.

[Cass]

23. This hurts the women who need it most.

She's pretty glib about it saying oh it's just a few women so its no big deal. That ticks me off.

And how come we have to bend over backward for moderates - can they not bend at all?

[w4rma]

25. Sounds correct to me. This is a health reform bill, not a bill to fight the abortion wars on. (nt)

[lily kitch]

27. Breaking: McCaskill flip flops. She now OPPOSES Stupak! (link)

McCaskill in Twitter "20 minutes ago:"

Oppose Stupak.Don't think we should change current law which is no public $ for abortions,but amndmt goes too far limitng private funds too

http://twitter.com/clairecmc/status/5576465243

[Beacool]

28. Well, McCaskill strikes again.

Obviously? The only obvious thing is that she only pays lip service to being pro-choice.

Screw her!!!

[TheDebbieDee]

31. I agree! I've had my suspicions about Sen. McCaskill's DINO

status for several months. I don't think she's even trying to hide it now. Claire's another Feinstein, Landrieu or Lincoln.

I won't give a dime to her next Re-election Campaign. She'll be lucky to get my vote. I'd give my eyetooth for even one genuine progressive Democrat here in Missouri!

[fasttense]

30. Congress is going to force us to pay off their bribes from the Health Insurance corporations

and then tell us we can't get a perfectly legal medical procedure.

I for one will never vote for a Democratic politician (don't worry I'll never vote RepubliCON) again, if the health care reform restricts my rights to do what a damn well please with my own body, even if I'm pregnant. They mandate I pay off overpaid Health Insurance CEOs and then turn around and tell me I can't use the bribe payoff for the purpose it was intended.

Let them control their own wombs and vaginas. If they don't like abortions, then they shouldn't get one. I hate these murdering Mother F**king anti's.

I can't get single payer, I have to pay the thieving corporations or face a fine. I get to pay out a good 20% of my income after premiums, caps, drug deductions, co-pays and other F**king crap I get to pay out. But I'll be damn if I put up with these kowtowing Dems restricting my freedoms and my right to an abortion. It's the straw that broke the camels back.

[cbdo2007]

32. She'll vote for whoever gives her the most money. I've been saying this for years

as a Missourianite. Of course, she was our only option at the time but we've got to get her out of office if we want to ever actually get anything done. She's useless (cause I can't afford to pay her bribes).