Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Stupak Amendment (Possible solution?)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:18 AM
Original message
Stupak Amendment (Possible solution?)
In regards to the Stupak amendment, given the conflict between progressives whom won't vote for it if it stays in the bill and the "Blue Dogs" whom won't vote for it if it isn't in the bill, as well as President Obama's statements on the matter, couldn't Pelosi try and make a deal with Stupak to strip it from the HCR bill in exchange for allowing a vote on a separate piece of legislation that does what Stupak wants it to do? As we've seen, it seems likely to pass in the House but would it be able to garner enough votes to overcome a filibuster and other possible procedural obstacles in the Senate if somebody was so inclined? There's always the risk that the legislation could still pass no matter what and we would need to deal with the fallout thereof but at least the Stupak amendment currently attached to the House Bill wouldn't "poison" and possibly torpedo the HCR bill- and would give us another opportunity to mobilize and keep it from becoming law. What does everybody think about that? :shrug:
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. Stupak is a member of the fundie C-Street house religious cult
You can't make deals with the American Taliban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Is he?! Then it's not hard to find some dirt on him. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. how do you think that will help? ensign and coburn are still in the senate, mark sanford
is still gov of SC. none of the people involved with C street has suffered any sort of political consequence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
21. True, but the publicity didn't help.
Actally Sanford and Ensign are under investigation last I heard. And Sanford is probably facing impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. From my understanding. Obama may have the amendment reworderd and neutered.
But keep the name in order to keep Stupad happy but allow women their rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. how do you think an amendment that strips women of their rights can be reworded so that women can
keep their rights? the american taliban of whom stupid is a part do not believe women have any rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:20 AM
Response to Original message
3. it would seem like a possible solution--except that several senators are indicating they are
planning on putting something like this, or even worse, in the senate bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. That's what I'm concerned about too (i.e. Reid)
My major concern is keeping it out of HCR legislation because I'm concerned that one side or the other might sink it because of this amendment. I'm with President Obama on this one when he stated that he doesn't believe that it should be part of HCR legislation. It's a needless, divisive "wedge" issue that should NOT be in it IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
7. You mean the Hyde amendment which is already in force?! Sec 236 of Stupak = Sec 507 of Hyde word ...
...for word almost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. So, why did Stupak feel that his amendment was necessary?
I'm confused?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Sigh, admission: I listen to right wing religious radio...often and they are lying about HCR to keep
...the religious right on the sidelines by saying Obama's HCR plans would wipe out the Hyde amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. So, Stupak felt the need to put this amendment out there to "assuage" them?
(as though they can ever really be "assuaged" about such things). :shrug: My major issue with the legislation is that it doesn't provide a mechanism for women to obtain such coverage without dipping into federal funds and finding affordable insurance outside of the exchange may be difficult at best. If some kind of mechanism could be worked out that ensures that women can privately purchase separate coverage for abortion and that abortion coverage is not banned entirely for private insurers participating in the exchange, it might not be such a huge deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. Hyde is voted on annually.
Hyde is limited in scope to managed care programs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Unnn, I don't read the second part in Sec 507 of Hyde...it's says no federal funds no matter what th
...program is no?

TIA
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
9. No compromise. It has nothing to do with healthcare. Only a forum for anti-abortion propaganda
This has got to stop, and a line needs to be drawn

If the blue dogs continue with these diversions, they need to be told that not only will they not get DNC support in re-relection efforts, but their states projects will not be brought before Congress

They are either with us, or they are out

Enough compromise. A woman's right to choose is law. The healthcare bill isn't the forum to discuss it PERIOD



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
joeycola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. And the House thinks it is perfectly acceptable for women to pay extra for a rider!!!.....
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r1... :

Mr. Speaker, to say that this amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing would be the understatement of a lifetime. The proponents say it simply extends the Hyde amendment, just a clarification of current law. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If enacted, this amendment will be the greatest restriction of a woman's right to choose to pass in our careers.

Time: 19:45

Here is why: The Hyde amendment states that no Federal funds shall be used for abortions. This has been contained in our annual appropriations bills for many years.

In the Energy and Commerce Committee, the pro-choice and some pro-life Democrats came together and compromised and we said no Federal funds in this bill will be used for abortions, the Capps amendment. This bill does not spend one Federal dollar on abortions.

This Stupak-Pitts amendment goes much further. It says that as part of their basic coverage, the public option cannot offer abortions to anyone, even those purchasing the policies with 100 percent private money. The amendment further says that anyone who purchases insurance in the exchange and who receives premium assistance cannot get insurance coverage for a legal medical procedure even with the portion of their premium that is their own private money.

Well, the proponents say women can just purchase supplemental insurance for abortions. This very notion is offensive to women. No one thinks that women will have an unplanned pregnancy or a planned pregnancy that goes terribly wrong. Would we expect to have people buy supplemental insurance for cancer treatment just in case maybe they might get sick? Like it or not, this is a legal medical procedure, and we should respect those who need to make this very personal decision.

Once again, the base bill contains language that preserves the Hyde amendment. Let's keep our eyes on the goal here, providing safe medical treatment for 36 million Americans. Let's not sacrifice reproductive rights today in pursuance of that noble goal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. The majority of people believe that abortion should be legal. They also want a public option
If the majority of people represent independents and moderates, and the Democrats ignore the progressive base in their party, does that mean the Democrats will lose elections? Not necessarily

The republicans have taken a far right turn after the 2008 election, instead of moderating toward the center, and that is why I think the Democrats as a whole still have an advantage, but it is not a secure one


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uponit7771 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. EXACTLY !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Clio the Leo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
11. While I think it's a good effort at trying to find a solution....
.... I dont think the Stupak gang would take it. Why give up a "golden" opportunity to include it with legislation that most Democrats want passed in exchange for kicking it down the road to likely failure. In other words, the very reason why the right half of the Dems wanted it in there was because they knew the left half of the Dems want this bill passed. The right has the left by the proverbial short hairs. If it's pushed back to later, then in it's a part of legislation that is less important and therefore more likely to fail.

I think, based on what the President said yesterday, something like the amendment is going to be in the final bill. The best the left can hope for is an empty, symbolic statement that allows the right to claim a victory with an amendment that has no real teeth to it. Hence the "not change the status quo" remark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Proud Liberal Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. I think you're probably right
It would be nice to think that the "Stupak gang" (as you so aptly put it) would not be suicidal enough to obstruct HCR over THIS but, unfortunately, Pelosi's acquiesence to a vote on this *amendment* to secure passage of a HCR bill this past Saturday was probably the only way to get his and probably others' vote on the package. It just sucks that the HCR debate has been hijacked by him and his ilk and turned into a debate over abortion, particularly since it really, frankly, has NO place whatsoever in a debate over HCR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. Right on, the bill was hijacked all the way by Stupak.
Anyone who does not realize this does not get that he used this bill to get this amendment in there as the left in the House would almost all vote for the bill and they did with one exception. I expect nothing less from C Street scum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC