Stupak Amendment Fight (11th Update)

by: Chris Bowers

Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 15:47


Please call now to defeat the Stupak Amendment
Top Targets
Baird (WA-03): (202) 225-3536
Barrow (GA-12) (202) 225-2823
Berry (AR-01) (202) 225-4076
Cardozza (CA-18): (202) 225-6131
Castle: (DE-AL): 202.225.4165
Cuellar (TX-28) (202)-225-1640
Matheson (UT-02) (202) 225-3011
Michaud (ME-02): 202-225-6306
Perriello (VA-05): (202) 225-4711
Pomeroy (ND-AL)  (202) 225-2611
Snyder (AR-02) (202) 225-2506
Tanner (TN-08) (202) 225-4714
Visclosky (IN-01) (202) 225-2461
Wilson (OH-06) (202) 225-5705

***

As you have probably heard by now, Bart Stupak's amendment to prevent any insurance plan in the health care exchanges from covering abortion procedures is set to get a floor vote tonight. If it passes as part of the bill, this would be a significant step backward for reproductive rights, even under a broad Democratic trifecta. Here is what I know:

  1. No Progressive Block, apparently due to Obama reassurance. To my knowledge, no pro-choice Democrats have threatened to vote against the bill as a result of this.  Apparently, this is because of a rumor going around Congress that President Obama promised Henry Waxman that he will "personally" work to remove the language in conference.  I feel so reassured.

  2. No other amendments. No other amendments (Medicare +5% public option, single-payer) will be voted on.  Just the Stupak amendment.  Apparently, the leadership felt it needed to placate Stupak, but not single-payer or robust public option supporters.  Once again, the Regressives play hardball better than the Progressives.

    Stupak is taunting progressives about this, too.

  3. Did the leadership get played?: Stupak claims that the bill will pass no matter what happens to his amendment.  If that is true, then he really played the leadership on this, since they appear to have only allowed his amendment in order to get the votes for passage of the overall bill.

  4. Timeline: The Stupak amendment will be voted on after the debate is over.  This means around 7:15 p.m. eastern.  A final vote on the overall bill will take place at around 9 p.m.

  5. Chance of passage: Stupak is claiming that he has "about 220 votes" for his amendment. Update: Now Stupak claims he was 225 votes.

    In order for it to pass, Stupak needs 41, plus all Republicans.

  6. Take Action: Bart Stupak has claimed that Roll Call 553 was a test run for this amendment.  As such, I have provided a list of Democrats who did not vote with Stupak on that occasion, but who are listed as potential votes for his bill this time around.  they are the most likely targets, as they have defied Stupak before.  I have also added Tom Perriello, was actually endorsed by Open Left (how embarrassing), and Frank Kratovil, who is listed by NARAL as pro-choice.

    Update: Top targets moved to the top of the post.

  7. Loretta Sanchez is a no: According to art3 in the comments, Loretta Sanchez is a no on the Stupak amendment.  One down, give to go.  Keep calling.

  8. Walt Minnick is a no: Walt Minnick is also a no now.  We need five more.

  9. Spratt is a yes: Looks like we just lost John Spratt, who had previously defied Stupak. Now Stupak needs 7 more, we need 5 more.

  10. Kratovil also seems to be a no: Per the comments, Kratovil seems to be a no.
I have refined the target list in an attempt to narrow our calls and make them more effective.  If you would like to call someone else, I have kept a broader list in the extended entry, along with the number for the Congressional switchboard.
Chris Bowers :: Stupak Amendment Fight (11th Update)
Congressional Switchboard
1-877-851-6437, 1-800-828-0498, or 1-800-614-2803.

Six Five Dems who joined with Stupak in July, and might need shoring up
Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Mitchell (AZ-05)
Kanjorski (PA-12)
Doyle (PA-14)
Nye (VA-02)

Possible Republicans to call:
Biggert (R, IL-13)

Dent (R, PA-15)
Frelinghuysen (R, NJ-11)
Kirk (R, IL-10)
Capito (R, WV-02)
Jenkins (R, KS-02)
Lance (R, NJ-07)
Lee, C. (R, NY-26)
Paulsen (R, MN-03)

Democrats who previously joined with Stupak, and who are likely to join him again (34, if you count Stupak. He needs 41.)
Altmire (PA-04)
Berry (AR-01)
Boccieri (OH-16)
Boren (OK-02)
Bright (AL-02)
Carney (PA-10)
Childers (MS-01)
Costello (IL-12)
Dahlkemper (PA-03)
Davis, A. (AL-07)
L. Davis (TN-04)
Donnelly (IN-02)
Driehaus (OH-01)
Ellsworth (IN-08)
Griffith (AL-05)
Hill (IN-09)
Holden (PA-17)
Kildee (MI-05)
Lipinski (IL-03)
Lynch (MA-09)
Marshall (GA-08)
McIntyre (NC-07)
Melancon (LA-03)
Mollohan (WV-01)
Oberstar (MN-08)
Ortiz (TX-27)
Peterson (MN-07)
Rahall (WV-03)
Ross (AR-04)
Shuler (NC-11)
Skelton (MO-04)
Spratt (SC-05)
Taylor (MS-04)


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Sanchez (4.00 / 2)
has some serious explaining to do as she voted against the rules vote. Didn't she say she was for the public option?

I am going to call Periello, Sanchez, Cuellar, Ortiz, and Wilson.


Called her (0.00 / 0)
Got through to a staffer pretty quickly and requested that Sanchez vote against the Stupak amendment.  The staffer sounded a little befuddled; I hope she knew what I was talking about.

[ Parent ]
I also called (0.00 / 0)
Her staffer was friendly enough but didn't tell me how the Congresswoman would vote.

[ Parent ]
Kratovil staff would not commit (4.00 / 2)
but it sounded to me like Kratovil will not support amendment. He is pro-choice.

The staffer I spoke to (0.00 / 0)
Said that he did not know how Kratovil would vote on the amendment, but that he would vote against the bill overall.  The reasons he gave were that the Congressman feared that it would increase the deficit, hurt small businesses, etc., etc.  When I said that the health care bill was actually projected to save money, he said that the Congressman wasn't concerned about the first 10 years, but the point afterward.  Can anyone think of a suitable rebuttal to that?

[ Parent ]
well, the house bill is supposed to reduce the deficit (0.00 / 0)
in the next 10 years too, per CBO.  I'll see if I can find a link.

[ Parent ]
A suitable rebuttal would be (4.00 / 1)
did Kratovil vote against the Bush tax cuts or either of our current wars. Does he support continuing increases in defense spending (rather than deep cuts)?  (I'm guessing here about his stances.) Because the idea that doing nothing on health care while supporting any of these policies is driven by a concern for the deficit is ridiculous.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
He probably didn't (4.00 / 2)
Since he sounds like a Blue Dog hypocrite.  However, what good would it have done to press that argument?  Would the staffer have said, "You know, you raise a good point!  I'm going to remind the Congressman of his hypocrisy right away!"

[ Parent ]
Fair point (4.00 / 1)
While you need something to back it up, perhaps something along the lines of "health care costs are exploding the budget, so doing nothing about them makes it worse."  

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
kratovil is a freshman rep so he wasn't around (4.00 / 1)
to vote for the bush tax cuts or for the wars.  he does probably support them though.

[ Parent ]
They have to vote for the wars every two years to keep them going (0.00 / 0)
It's required by the Constitution.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
Elected Nov. 2008 (0.00 / 0)
Not in the House or Senate then. No vote.

[ Parent ]
I talked to the same aide (4.00 / 7)
He gave me the same spiel. I told him that doing NOTHING would end up bankrupting the country, and he told me that Kravotil supports health care reform, but only after more thought and deliberation. I told the guy that we've been trying to do this for 40 years, how much more thought do we need?

I also told him that the Congressman should support a stronger public option if he wants to bring the cost down, but he said nothing in response.

I finally just told him that if Kravotil is pro-choice, he should vote against the Stupak amendment and then vote his own way on the final bill.

This guy is NEVER getting any of my money again.


[ Parent ]
easy response? (4.00 / 1)
He won't be in Congress in 10 years if he votes against the bill (as long as it doesn't have Stupak).  oh, being snarky. will get back to you when I can be more serious about it. I'm a bit pissed about this all right now.

[ Parent ]
re: pro-choice (4.00 / 2)
He is pro-choice.

then why is even his name on the list?

wtf are pro-choice dems doing on the list?


[ Parent ]
SSMir on Daily Kos (0.00 / 0)
said that he called the office and was told that Kratovil was "pro-choice" on the Stupak amendment.  Could that mean he'll vote no?

[ Parent ]
he voted no (0.00 / 0)
roll-call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/200...

I'm pissed at those that voted no but entertained a yes vote. if you claim you're pro-choice wtf is the point of even entertaining a yes vote? the choice is crystal clear. you vote no. you don't need any contemplation...


[ Parent ]
He is lying!! (4.00 / 3)
In the HuffPo article he said that 15 or so would vote for the bill regardless of whether or not the amendment made the final cut. This means that he DID NOT have 15 firm votes.  220-15=205.  

This man is full of shit and played the leadership.


so what about the other amendments, then? (4.00 / 3)
we couldn't allow votes on tying reimbursement to Medicare, or allowing single-payer exceptions for the states, because we couldn't open the bill up to the Stupak poison pill.

that's moot now. so? were the leadership, perhaps, full of the digestive byproduct?

i am sure there is a case to still be made voting for this bill as a whole but i'd have to hear it because i can't think of how it goes...

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.


Sutpak played chicken and won... (4.00 / 1)
With all the supposedly "good" Democrats bailing on us at the last minute, the leadership got scared and settled for the sure bet.  I can't entirely blame them... the rash of betrayals certainly stunned them.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
Okay so why can't we have the other amendments up for a vote as well? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
because they won't pass (0.00 / 0)
You're not getting Republican votes to pass single-payer the way Stupak is getting for his amendment.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
nobody ever expected the single payer amendment to pass (4.00 / 1)
it was all about getting people on record about it.

[ Parent ]
I guess I don't understand the fascination (4.00 / 1)
I don't deny it exists, because Stupak's quote actually says that the "pro-life" people feel the same way:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) told reporters that regardless of the outcome of the vote on his amendment, which would severely restrict coverage of reproductive health issues, the House health care bill is headed for passage. He is whipping support for the amendment and estimates he has 225 votes. If he's right, the amendment will pass, and he predicted enough pro-life Democrats will vote yes on the final bill to put it over the top. But if it fails, he said, enough pro-lifers -- ten to 15, he said -- will have been satisfied to have had their vote on the floor that they'll turn around and support the final bill anyway. Picking up ten to 15 votes would give the bill a comfortable margin for passage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


[ Parent ]
I thought the whole point was that the Stupak amendment WOULD pass (4.00 / 6)
and that's why it couldn't be up for a vote.

And that was the reason why the other amendments couldn't be brought up either.  Now that the floodgates are open with the Stupak amendment, the other ones should be allowed for a vote as well.  There's no excuse.  What we have here is the worst of all worlds - the suckiest amendment is the ONLY one allowed for a vote.

Besides which, the Kucinich amendment could very well pass, judging by how well it did in committee.  Grijalva amendment might have a shot too.


[ Parent ]
We Want An Up Or Down Vote On ALL Amendments! (4.00 / 1)
DC Phone #1: 202-225-4965
DC Phone #2: 202-225-0100
District Voice Mail: 415-556-4862  

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Those Phone Numbers Go To Nancy Pelosi (0.00 / 0)


I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


[ Parent ]
Actually, it could pass... (0.00 / 0)
GOP would just vote present... They would do that to significantly complicate things for the leadership...  This strategy was talked about yesterday by GOP aides.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!


[ Parent ]
This is going to be close (4.00 / 1)
and even Stupak admitted it won't kill the bill to have the amendment fail, which would be the only reason to vote for it.

Let's defeat this.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


except (4.00 / 2)
his goal might be to kill the bill and he might be lying. What? A politician lie?

[ Parent ]
Pro Choice Republicans? (0.00 / 0)
Are there any pro-choice Republicans that could be pressured?


I don't know (0.00 / 0)
I didn't see any on the "leaning against" list that I saw.

[ Parent ]
Mike Castle (4.00 / 1)
He is running for senate in DE.  Could he vote against this bill?

Stupak is full of shit and I cannot say that enough. This man did NOT have the votes.


[ Parent ]
Whipping (4.00 / 4)
I've been under the impression that the Republicans aren't even being whipped and it is just assumed they will all vote for a poison pill.  But I'm not so sure that is true.  If the vote is this close, it seems like it would be a good idea peel off pro-choice Republicans, even if they are a nearly extinct breed.

[ Parent ]
Shelley Moore Capito (WV-02) (4.00 / 2)
Is supposedly pro-choice, though most of her Republican supporters don't know it. She is a member of that Republican woman's pro-choice PAC (can't remember the name of it right now) and it is one of the ways she's cultivated a moderate image over the years.

Calling her office is important so she'll know the vote is being paid attention to.

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue


[ Parent ]
I hope Emily's List (4.00 / 6)
is taking note of this vote. They have supported plenty of pro-choice Republican women in the past, but this vote is where the rubber meets the road.

Anyone who votes in favor of the Stupak amendment should never get a dime from women's groups or progressive groups again. Ever.


[ Parent ]
Emily's List is for pro-choice Dems (4.00 / 3)
but NARAL and Planned Parenthood have endorsed pro-choice Republicans.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
Both are currently whipping against Stupak amendment (4.00 / 1)
and PPA was part of the crew that negotiated on the Capps amendment during committe mark-up. I don't trust national NARAL but I do trust PPA so we'll see what they can accomplish.

[ Parent ]
Emily's list in the heart of the veal pen (0.00 / 0)
Totally controlled by Rahm and Soros.

[ Parent ]
Yvette Clarke (4.00 / 1)
Emily's List money, all of $67,000, was decisive in getting Yvette Clarke nominated.  Definitely a Better Democrat.  Clarke's carrer mark on Crucual Votes via Progressuve Punch is 92.49%, second only to Donna Edwards among recently elected House members.

Otoh, I think they played a big part in giving us Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1).  She's pretty much terrible on everything.


[ Parent ]
Does Stupak Amendment really prohibit abortion coverage in the exchange? (0.00 / 0)

Here's the text (pdf). Page 4 of the pdf file, lines 15 thru 22 read as follows:

(3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section [must] also offer an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section. (emphasis added)

That section specifically acknowledges health plans in the exchange covering abortions. I don't see any language in the entire text that prohibits the exchange from offering plans that cover abortions -- of course it's pretty absolute about prohibiting any public funds being used.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans


If policies that offer (4.00 / 3)
abortion coverage are not eligible for subsidies NO POLICIES WILL OFFER COVERAGE.

That's the whole idea. If passed, women would be forced by law to buy insurance, and that insurance would not cover abortions. Contraception is next.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Mike Castle!!!!! (4.00 / 5)
He's undecided about Stupak. Keep calling him.

sanchez votes no (4.00 / 8)
sanchez is a no on stupak. just spoke to her staff chris and press chief is about to send a release.

could Stupak have defeated the rule? (0.00 / 0)
As you say, Regressives play hardball better, I wonder if here, leadership couldn't get a rule without a vote on Stupak through, where a few Progressives claimed they wouldn't vote for the whole bill, the fight to get single payer voted on or Stupak not was in the rule.

minnick no (4.00 / 4)
spoke to minnick-he is no on stupak chris

according to mcjoan, minnick is also a "no" (4.00 / 3)
on stupak amendment.  

Update 3: Just spoke with a represenative for Minnick. He will not for Stupak.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Is it wrong to start feeling a little optimistic about this?


stop commenting and phone! n/t (4.00 / 1)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


oberstar yes (0.00 / 0)
spoke to oberstar chief of staff. he backs stupak

Ortiz is a yes (4.00 / 1)
on Stupak.

I have been unable to get through Cuellar.


Henry Cuellar, that ole Bush supporter? (0.00 / 0)
We shouldn't put much hope into this DINO...

[ Parent ]
It's Time To Get Rid Of Pelosi & Hoyer (0.00 / 0)
I am not talking about primaries. I am talking NY-23 style.

I am totally in favor of health care reform.
I am diametrically opposed to health insurance reform.


Rep. Wilson (0.00 / 0)
Tried three times and the third time I got a voicemail saying they were experiencing really high call volume. Good.

Keep calling!


spratt a yes (0.00 / 0)
spratt a yes says his cheif

Yup; Visclosky undecided (4.00 / 1)
Keep calling!

[ Parent ]
Damn it (0.00 / 0)
Updated. But thanks for confirming.

[ Parent ]
lee yes (0.00 / 0)
lee backs stupak

Damn (0.00 / 0)
Not surprising, but thanks for confirming. Updated.

[ Parent ]
Wilson undecided (4.00 / 3)
Finally got through to Wilson. He is undecided. I will give his ass a call back in an hour.

Keep trying Visclosky folks!!  


I couldn't get through at all (0.00 / 0)
I called after I saw your message, and got the "high call volume, please leave a message... sorry, mailbox is full."  I'm starting to think it's a ploy.

[ Parent ]
Got through to Visclosky's office (4.00 / 1)
The staffer was nice and said he would pass along my message.  Of course, he did ask me where I was from, and I had to admit California, but I said that I donate to Democrats around the country.  

[ Parent ]
good (4.00 / 1)
because there's a chance his ass will have a different opinion than his lame brain.

[ Parent ]
Baird not answering but (4.00 / 2)
If he is a no vote on the bill could be a no vote on Stupak as well?

nye says NO stupak (4.00 / 7)
nye say s NO!

Where is Nye? (4.00 / 1)
I don't see him on any of Chris's lists.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the effort, Chris (4.00 / 2)
I made a call to Visclosky to do my little part for the cause.

Castle (4.00 / 2)
They hope to have an answer within the hour from him.

Keep calling!


MICHAUD UNDECIDED (4.00 / 5)
MICHUAD UNDECIDED STILL CALL

Yup he sure is! (4.00 / 2)
Keep calling. I told him that I do not want to have to get a coat hanger.

[ Parent ]
Mitchell ain't answering but (0.00 / 0)
he is very pro-choice so I do not think he would be voting with Stupak.

Paulsen's office isn't picking up (0.00 / 0)
but he's always voted and ran as a pro-lifer. I'd take him off the list, not a chance he'll vote no on Stupak.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

Hypocrisy? (0.00 / 0)
I don't get this. I've always been angry at the Blue Dogs and other Dems from rural, conservative and Republican-leaning districts for using that as an excuse for opposing the public option or other progressive economic programs. But I understand them having to vote against federal funding of abortion in order to stay around. Why are we giving them hell for voting with their constituents?  

I dunno. (4.00 / 1)
Fewer unwanted babies in the world?

[ Parent ]
it's not voting with constituents (4.00 / 4)
This is using cover of health care reform to change current law--Hyde amendment already bans federal funding of abortions. This framing from Health Care for America Now gets it exactly right:

The core premise of health reform is that if you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. Yet for the millions of women whose current insurance plans include coverage for abortion care, that promise may be broken today.

In West Virginia the state is pretty well divided on abortion. There are two Dem Reps. who are "pro-life" and one Republican Rep. who is "pro-choice" but the voting records for all three of them are not all that different. There is no constituent consensus for changing current policies.  

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue


[ Parent ]
Really? (0.00 / 0)
You honestly believe that WEST VIRGINIA is pretty well divided on abortion? Are you really going to tell me that these Dems representing districts with Republican tilts of +12 or +6 are voting against their constituents by voting against federal funding of abortion?

Hyde doesn't cover the new health care programs being set up. Hence the debate on how to move forward. Both Capps and Stupak claim that their Amendment stays true to the principles of Hyde in how they approach the public option, affordability credits, and the exchange. I think it's a genuine policy disagreement and understand that members from rural, socially conservative district feel pressured BY THEIR CONSTITUENTS to vote for Stupak.  


[ Parent ]
WV covers "medically necessary" abortions for Medicare (4.00 / 6)
Yes, I honestly believe that WVians are divided on abortion. I haven't seen any recent public opinion polls but I'd bet there's at least 40% pro-choice.

WVians already pay for abortions in government-provided health care. We're one of 17 more liberal states when it comes to state-funded abortion coverage via Medicare:

Seventeen states (AK, AZ, CA, CT, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA, WV) use their own funds to cover all or most "medically necessary" abortions sought by low-income women under Medicaid.


They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

[ Parent ]
Stupak . . . (0.00 / 0)
Still allows for federal funding in case of rape, incest, and life of the mother, just like Hyde.

[ Parent ]
Oh good. (4.00 / 1)
So how do you prove rape? How do you prove incest? Do you have any idea how underreported these crimes are, and how difficult it is to get a conviction?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Your Problem Is With Hyde (0.00 / 0)
All of those questions also apply to Hyde. My question to you is why Democrats have done nothing to repeal Hyde so far?

[ Parent ]
P.S. 17 is a minority (0.00 / 0)
You realize that 17 states is a minority of the 50, and several were forced by the courts to fund abortions. Government funding of abortion is a minority position.

[ Parent ]
Yes. (3.33 / 6)
According to the CDC, "red" states have higher rates of abortion than "blue" ones.

Women and girls in West Virginia deserve safety and freedom as much as anyone else in America.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
This is not about federal funding (4.00 / 2)
of abortion (see above) and it is not voting with their constituents. Forced childbirth is a minority position.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
This is about federal funds (0.00 / 0)
This is about federal funding of abortion. This is about how to apply the Hyde amendment to the new health care exchange and public option. I understand people are upset because Stupak seems really regressive. Newsflash. The Hyde amendment is really regressive. What in the world about Hyde's career gives the indication that an amendment named after him would represent sensible policy? Opposing federal funding of abortion is a majority position in the nation as a whole and I sympathize with these Dems in Republican districts in this vote.

Are you not aware that because of the Hyde amendment and similar restrictions federal employees have to pay out of pocket for abortions?

That the ban on federal funding of abortion means that military personnel and their families also have to pay out of pocket for abortions?

Stupak is just fighting to maintain the same principles that already govern existing health care programs run by the federal government. It may suck, but that's because the status quo sucks. But I don't remember Obama and the Democratic Congress doing anything to change it earlier this year.


[ Parent ]
Wrong. (4.00 / 2)
The Hyde amendment already applies. This is an attempt to eliminate all insurance coverage for abortion.

Don't worry about those Dems in Republican districts who vote against women on this one. The poor things won't have that problem in the future because they will not be re-elected.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Stop Fearmongering (0.00 / 0)
This is about federal funding of abortions through affordability credits on the exchange, which CBO has projected will cover about 10% of people. If you're so outraged about that why aren't you outraged by the 14% of the workforce that is employed by one of the levels of government and do not have abortion coverage because the federal government and most states don't allow for abortion coverage in the health insurance plans they pay for?

Stupak sucks. I'm not denying that. But the status quo sucks. And I for one understand that any Democrat in a Republican district will be hammered and thrown out of office if they vote to loosen restrictions on abortion funding. I for one would like to keep our majority in Congress.  


[ Parent ]
Any Democrat (4.00 / 1)
who votes with Stupak will be hammered and thrown out of office. If you want to keep "your" majority, get on the horn and tell them that.  

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Shorter LibDem: So many atrocities, I don't care anmyore. (4.00 / 1)
Do I get you right? Just because there have been other horrible anti-choice bills, nationally and in the states, people shouldn't oppose pro-life attempts to increase the hardships? Just because keeping a phony majority, that largely exists only on the paper (look at the final healthcare bill vote!), is somewhat more important? D'oh.

[ Parent ]
Methinks (0.00 / 0)
libdem is a pro-forced childbirth troll . . . none of these positions he/she spouts make sense, or hold together.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Well, I try to be not so fast with my judgment... (0.00 / 0)
..but I'm sure a bit irritated about his opinions.

[ Parent ]
mitchell's aide says a no- (4.00 / 5)
Spoke to mtichell's office. aide says he thinks he is a firm no and is pro choice.

cardoza on fence (4.00 / 3)
cardoza still unsure call

Hmm (4.00 / 1)
Aide said she couldn't speak for him at all and I told her I am going to need for him to speak up and say no to coat hangers.

[ Parent ]
I tried to call Lincoln Davis, (0.00 / 0)
his mailbox is full. I did send him an email.

Montani semper liberi

Called Brian Baird at 6:49 PM (4.00 / 1)
The voicemail box was full.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter


Called Mike Castle at 6:55 PM (0.00 / 0)
Hasn't made a commitment yet.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter


Left a message for Cardozza. (0.00 / 0)
The offices are closed now on the East Coast.  

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox