Dems who voted for the Stupak amendment to restrict women's rights.

by: AdamGreen

Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 23:06


Tom Perriello. (Who I spent days knocking on doors for in Charlottesville, Virginia.)

And everyone else... (list in the extended entry)

AdamGreen :: Dems who voted for the Stupak amendment to restrict women's rights.
Altmire, Jason  PA-4
Baca, Joe  CA-43
Barrow, John  GA-12
Berry, Marion  AR-1
Bishop, Sanford  GA-2
Boccieri, John  OH-16
Boren, Dan  OK-2
Bright, Bobby  AL-2
Cardoza, Dennis  CA-18
Carney, Christopher  PA-10
Chandler, Ben  KY-6
Childers, Travis  MS-1
Cooper, Jim  TN-5
Costa, Jim  CA-20
Costello, Jerry  IL-12
Cuellar, Henry  TX-28
Dahlkemper, Kathleen  PA-3
Davis, Artur  AL-7
Davis, Lincoln  TN-4
Donnelly, Joe  IN-2
Doyle, Mike  PA-14
Driehaus, Steve  OH-1
Ellsworth, Brad  IN-8
Etheridge, Bob  NC-2
Gordon, Bart  TN-6
Griffith, Parker  AL-5
Hill, Baron  IN-9
Holden, Tim  PA-17
Kanjorski, Paul  PA-11
Kaptur, Marcy  OH-9
Kildee, Dale  MI-5
Langevin, Jim  RI-2
Lipinski, Daniel  IL-3
Lynch, Stephen  MA-9
Marshall, Jim  GA-8
Matheson, Jim  UT-2
McIntyre, Mike  NC-7
Melancon, Charles  LA-3
Michaud, Michael  ME-2
Mollohan, Alan  WV-1
Murtha, John  PA-12
Neal, Richard  MA-2
Oberstar, James  MN-8
Obey, Dave  WI-7
Ortiz, Solomon  TX-27
Perriello, Thomas  VA-5
Peterson, Collin  MN-7
Pomeroy, Earl  ND-AL
Rahall, Nick  WV-3
Reyes, Silvestre  TX-16
Rodriguez, Ciro  TX-23
Ross, Mike  AR-4
Ryan, Timothy  OH-17
Salazar, John  CO-3
Shuler, Heath  NC-11
Skelton, Ike  MO-4
Snyder, Vic  AR-2
Space, Zack  OH-18
Spratt, John  SC-5
Stupak, Bart  MI-1
Tanner, John  TN-8
Taylor, Gene  MS-4
Teague, Harry  NM-2
Wilson, Charles  OH-6

What is the Stupak amendment?

Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) is trying to radically change abortion law in this country today.

A central promise of health care reform is that if you like the health care coverage you have, you can keep it. Today in America, millions of women who buy health care on their own or who get it through the small business employer have abortion care coverage. Congressman Stupak's amendment would strip them of that coverage, breaking that central promise.

Stupak wants to outlaw abortion coverage in the new health insurance Exchange, where individuals and small businesses will purchase their coverage. Instead, women would only be able to purchase abortion coverage in a "abortion rider" plan - a single-service plan that covers abortion only. Such an "abortion rider" is discriminatory and illogical. Women do not plan to have unintended pregnancies (or pregnancies in which a complication will arise that will require ending the pregnancy). In fact, about half of all pregnancies are unintended. Abortion is simply not something that women plan to insure against.

Put simply, the Stupak amendment is a dramatic departure from current law which would restrict a women's right to choose. What's more, it would put an unprecedented restriction on people who pay for their own health insurance.

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

Dems who voted for the Stupak amendment to restrict women's rights. | 55 comments
Kratovil didn't? (4.00 / 1)

 That's kind of surprising. He's forever rationalizing being Republican-lite. And he's virulently against the public option.

 Weird.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

The one I am surprised at ... (4.00 / 1)
is Obey ... but that's because I don't know where he usually stands on this issue .. and otherwise .. he's usually pretty progressive .. the rest are just a bunch of reactionary assholes(except Kaptur)
I blame the pro-choice incompetent 'leaders' for (4.00 / 1)
this bullshit.

some me-he-history. I'm 49, and, BTW, genetic plumbing means I've never had, personally, and I'll never have, personally, to choose!

I remember my aunts and mother being fed up at their priests and the catholic church in the 60's when the ladies were told to stay barefoot and pregnant ... and that was the end of the church for ladies of my family.

IF it is sold correctly, 90++% of the country does NOT want their neighbor's guru, rabbi, priest, bishop, minister, sensai ... in their OWN:

bedroom,
kid's classroom,
doctor's office,
place of worship ...

So, why the fuck are we dealing with these flat earther twits? well, we are dealign with and beholden to twits cuz the relatively affluent politically active pro-choice crowd is so $ocially homogeneou$ that they do NOT work outside their own little clique$,

hence their pathetic ass message is ALWAYS just preaching to the planned-parenthood-board-of-director talbot's set,

hence they do NOT whomp these flat earth 12th century twits back into the maggot slime caves they belong in,

hence our pathetic 'progressives' are spending yet another day pissing & shitting in their diapers about how mean meanies are being ... mean.

this IS the pro-choice world's fucking fault - the pathetic 'leaders', and the myopic minions supporting pathetic 'leaders'.

ugh.

rmm.

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

They became complacent (4.00 / 2)
would be the polite way to say it. Fuck that! I think you're right.
[ Parent ]
Yep, absolutely. You don't see that kind of downward shift in pro-choice (4.00 / 2)
polling number by accident. The shift in numbers points to an abject messaging failure no question. Although, you know, I'm not sure how well these people work within their little cliques, either.  
[ Parent ]
I know this means extra work... (4.00 / 1)
...but could you find the time, Adam, to specify the district for each of the above folks (WA-08, for example)?

I'll be using this as a cribsheet/reference for who I give money to in 2010 - namely, whoever primaries against these folks.

Thanks in advance....

Damn. Disappointed in Sanford Bishop (D-GA). (0.00 / 0)
Though I can't say I'm surprised. He's never been especially forward-thinking and seems ready to do just about anything not to upset the status quo....or his reelection prospects. I'm sure that last bit is a common theme on the list...  
hallow (4.00 / 1)
the victory feels hallow. yea we passed the bill after giving up medicare po and on the backs of thr rts of women. im happy in way but pretty sad too.
Send a wire hanger to every one of their offices. (4.00 / 12)
Particularly to Bart Stupak's.
Democrats Against (4.00 / 4)
Here is a complete list of the Dems that voted against final passage.
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Baird
Barrow
Boccieri
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Bright
Chandler
Childers
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Edwards (TX)
Gordon (TN)
Griffith
Herseth Sandlin
Holden
Kissell
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
McIntyre
McMahon
Melancon
Minnick
Murphy (NY)
Nye
Peterson
Ross
Shuler
Skelton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague

This is the list of Dems voting For the Stupak amendment and Against final passage.

Altmire
Barrow
Boccieri
Boren
Bright
Chandler
Childers
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Gordon (TN)
Griffith
Holden
Marshall
Matheson
McIntyre
Melancon
Peterson
Ross
Shuler
Skelton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague

Upstate NY Dems (4.00 / 3)
So new guy Owens voted for the final bill. But Massa didn't, and neither did Murphy.

Doesn't exactly seem to correlate with where netroots energy and money went in electing these guys, does it?

[ Parent ]
Massa's a purity guy. (4.00 / 3)
Wouldn't settle for anything that wasn't perfect.
[ Parent ]
Every progressive should have voted against this abortion. (4.00 / 1)
This is a deal breaker.

A 20% Corporate Welfare Tax and repeal of Roe v. Wade.

[ Parent ]
Massa's vote no from the left (4.00 / 3)
is what many here have been calling for.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
[ Parent ]
I don't give a shit (4.00 / 2)
if he voted from the left. It's a betrayal and a bad vote. He deserves to lose just as much as everyone else.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
Why? (4.00 / 2)
His stance did nothing to hold the bill up or weaken the bill. Plenty of others worked to do both. Why put him in the same cateoryu as those members.

This strike me as prioritizing meaningless symbolism over practical politics.

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 ]
meaningless symbolism (0.00 / 0)
right on.

we really do need to keep the ones who will vote no from the left. the 'center' in congress is well to the right of the 'center' of the rest of the population.

[ Parent ]
You are why Stupak gets to gloat at progressives. n.t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
It's not even symbolism - it's just simplistic (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Hmm, isn't it also meaningless symbolism to vote NO "from the left"... (0.00 / 0)
...because the bill isn't good enough for him? What if his vote would have been the decisive one? Single payer had no chance to pass in this environment, and does he really think it's a good idea to wait some years to get something better passed? What about all the people who suffer in the meantime?

No, I'm not convinced that this was a good idea...

[ Parent ]
Btw, a mean primary challenger could make a big stink... (0.00 / 0)
...out of Massa's no vote. And probably convince some Dem voters they don't want someone who voted against the healthcare bill. I don't think that was smart by Massa.
[ Parent ]
The whole point of the No vote was because they knew it WOULD pass (4.00 / 1)
if their vote was the decisive one you can bet they would've voted differently.  The beauty of knowing what the vote will be in advance is that it frees you to vote based on how you really feel.
[ Parent ]
They KNEW? At +5? Looks like taking a huge risk to me. (0.00 / 0)
Irresponsible.
[ Parent ]
Make up your minds! (4.00 / 2)
You want principled Democrats until you decide they're purity trolls?   No wonder this party sucks.  
[ Parent ]
Come on, dk, someone voting against a bill that's a huge step... (0.00 / 0)
...in the right direction, simply because it doesn't go far enough for his taste is really a purity troll. Especially if the final bill passes with only two votes, showing he was playing a very dangerous game. Sry, let's not revive this same old same old arguement (we've had this discussion countless times here without reaching any agreement), it's just that I think that there's no real benefit to wait for a better bill that outweighs the negative side of countless real people having to wait much longer for an improvement in healthcare.

If it ever comes! Pls check the data that Chris updates daily: House Dems down to +5.18, Senate -4! The chances for a second chance, with maybe a better bill, are DECREASING steadily! Damn good the bill passed now. If voters see how this helps them in their lifes, there's a chance that the Dems won't be punished in 2010 for dragging their feet. Without this bill, the party would be toast in that election, because they promised a change that they didn't deliver. And in that case, all progressive dreams of a single payer system would be TOTALLY unrealistic. Only by passing the bill now have Dems preserved the chance to improve it. And imho this is obvious, for everyone plain to see, even for hardcore proressives.

[ Parent ]
It is why Stupak gloats!!! (4.00 / 2)
Progressives are all talk.  Someday, you need to be willing to take a punch.  
[ Parent ]
And that is an answer to my comment? (4.00 / 1)
`Sry, I don't se any connction. Of course, those damn centrists have the effing advantage that they may ally with right wingers to push their crap through. Progressives don't find such support on the left flank. But where does the idea about "all talk" and not "willing to take a punch" come from? As I see it, in this instance the preogressives played their carfds well. Remember, at the start of the game, leadership wasn't enthusiastic about the p.o. at all!
[ Parent ]
Where it comes from... (4.00 / 1)
Progressives (we) huff and puff but never blow the house down because it wouldn't be "practical".   It is always much better, cheaper, faster, etc. to work as a team to salvage what's left than to call anyone's bluff and blow the damned thing up.   We need to quit being so reasonable.  Will we on occassion cut off noses to spite faces?  Yes, but until we follow through on threats, they are just empty threats.   We raise, raise, raise.  They call our bluff, and we fold, fold, fold.  For a third metaphor, we are like parents who always yell and never follow through.  If we are all bark and no bite, the kids will never listen to us.  

Massa and Kucinich said, we want a "robust public option" or we won't vote for the bill.  It is what they did, and now they are getting attacked by the same people who attacked progressive for not taking a stand against a bill without a robust public option.  A bill denying women abortions is far from a robust public option.  Massa and Kucinich put their asses where their mouths were.  They are too be congratulated, not boiled alive.  

[ Parent ]
No (4.00 / 1)
Taking a principled stand is not meaningless.  

What if his vote would have been the decisive one?

What if the vote had been about giving us ponies?  If the situation was different, obviously what is an appropriate response would be different.

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 ]
+2, David, +2! That's almost as close as it can get. (0.00 / 0)
So, this isn't about ponies, this is about a very clear and obvious danger of the bill failing. And if this would have happened, progressives could forget about all their hopes of passing a better bill, as I just explained to dk. Look at the numbers, without this bill passing NOW, the party would be toast in 2010. No second chance. That's the ugly reality, damnit!
[ Parent ]
All of this pissing and moaning about (4.00 / 4)
Massa and Kucinich is exactly why Stupak got to gloat at progressives for being nothing but one big bluff.  Those who put their votes where their mouths are get boiled by so called progressives at blogs.  Booman has Kucinich nailed to a cross in a rec'd diary at dkos.  

If this bill is historic, all I can say is thank god Johnson and FDR did Medicare and Social Security.  This bunch would have settled for $10/month and a bandaid at a taxpayer cost of $50 a month.  The insurance industry is dancing for joy.  

[ Parent ]
Baird and Barrow. (4.00 / 6)
   These two are crying out for primary challenges.  They represent blueish districts and vote very badly on numerous issues.  Baird supported The Surge too.
[ Parent ]
Artur Davis is a piece of crap. (4.00 / 1)
    His district badly needs this bill.  But he's running for governor and that's what is more important to Artur Davis.
[ Parent ]
And screwing over his district... (4.00 / 2)

 ...enhances his run for governor how?  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
Is he a "living in a bubble" BlueDog like Deeds? (4.00 / 1)
A guy who simply doesn't understand that being on the right flank of the Dems is a sure receipe for losing, nowadays? That jerk must be nuts...
[ Parent ]
He obviously is ... (4.00 / 1)
he's in a safe Democratic district ... and he's DLC .. so what does that tell you? .. it tells me he cares more about corporate cash and Versailles then he does about the people he's supposed to represent
[ Parent ]
But the DLC can't help him much with GOTV. (4.00 / 1)
This guy may be in for a nasty surprise. Just like Deeds in oh-so-liberal Virginia.
[ Parent ]
Artur Davis is DLC ... (4.00 / 2)
and IIRC there was talk of him becoming AG .. thankfully .. that didn't happen .. hopefully he loses the Governor's race
[ Parent ]
Yes, especially since his Democratic opponent (4.00 / 4)
Ron Sparks, is supposed to be a liberal (at least by Alabama standards) and is probably to Davis's left.  Open Left should be putting its weight behind Sparks.

Either way, Davis will be gone and his district, AL-7, is D+18.  This is a golden opportunity to get a real liberal into this seat.

[ Parent ]
I know Kos .. (0.00 / 0)
was hoping Sparks would have run against Shelby(or Sessions .. whomever was up for re-election last year) .. and yeah .. Sparks would be to Davis' left .. though where he stands on things like the Stupak Amendment .. I don't know .. I do remember Kos saying that Sparks was a populist
[ Parent ]
The congressmen on the second list... (4.00 / 3)

 ...are human slime.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
Sigh (4.00 / 1)
The New Deal coalition thrived on including racists. Now the new Democratic coalition thrives on including womb controllers. Very disappointed in Tom.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
at least Perriello voted for the final bill n/t (0.00 / 0)

Does anyone know... (0.00 / 0)
whether this outlaws coverage for "abortion" procedure as a whole, or just when those procedures are performed on living fetuses?  For example, if I miscarry a child and have publicly-funded insurance, does that mean I can't get a D&C to perform the medically necessary step of having the remains removed from my uterus?

And are there no provisions for a woman's health?  So a woman forced to choose between risking her health and aborting the child would have to pay out of pocket to do that?

Something tells me that this BS couldn't stand up to legal challenges.

You owe it to yourself to listen to This American Life's fantastic and common-sense explanation of the economic crisis.

I think it's important to distinguish between those who are real liberals, but just pro-life (4.00 / 1)
As bad as this amendment was, remember that there are a lot of really strong liberals who happen to be pro-life.  Quite a few of the people on this list - Obey, Oberstar, Kaptur, Rodriguez - are strong liberals.  Even Dale Kildee and Nick Rahall are H.R. 676 cosponsors.
Hell, I'm pro Life, too. But also, I don't think Government has any right... (4.00 / 1)
...to force women into childbirth. I really don't see how you can be liberal and still support the discrimination of women who want to stop their pregnancy. And even though I see the point in Stupak's amendment, not to force the public to support abortions, it went way too far. How could any Dem support this crap? Even strongly religious liberals should know that Jesus told us to act with love, not force. Instead of voting for Stupak's shit, they should rather have created a bill for more financial support for pregnant women, and for campaigns to prefer adoption to abortion. What they're doing is letting religious believes spill into government, that's the same direction as all those Islamist drives for Shariah nations, and it's wrong wrong wrong.
[ Parent ]
I know (0.00 / 0)
I'm just saying that there are those who might be pro-life and voted yes on the Stupak amendment but are great on all the other issues.  We shouldn't punish those people (or if we do, do so in a more measured way).
[ Parent ]
Well, let's concentrate on those who voted Yes/No, ok. (0.00 / 0)
But let's not forget the other traitors. To me, it just comes down to a single question to these lawmakers: Do your christian beliefs trump your liberal ones? If yes, you should consider starting your own party! Name it the CSA (Christian Statures for America), or something like that. But don't pretend you're a liberal in the fist place.
[ Parent ]
No misunderstanding, if the Stupak bill would have been only about... (0.00 / 0)
...preventing the public option from covering abortions, I would agree with you. Then it has to be to tolerated if pro life Dems vote with their conscience, as long as they generally support the healthcare bull. But Stupak went way beyond this, his hateful ammendment effectively keeps any abortion coverage out of the private plans in the exchange, and pushes inusrers not to offer this. This goes way too far! And, sry, I have no sympathy for this at all, and I totally understand all those who want revenge for this horrible ecxample of legal discrimination.
[ Parent ]
There's no such thing. (4.00 / 1)
Liberalism is the idea that people have a right to make the important decisions in their lives. It is incompatible with forced childbirth.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Lynch MA09 represents Boston (0.00 / 0)
Explain that to me.
Stephen Lynch (4.00 / 1)
Lynch's power base is in South Boston, which is heavily Irish Catholic, and the home to just about every Boston mayor for the past century before Tom Menino (who just got reelected to his fifth term).  The ninth district extends into Boston's south suburbs, which can be relatively conservative--for Massachusetts.  Which is to say that Lynch could definitely be primaried based on his anti-abortion record.  He hasn't faced any serious Democratic challengers since winning a special election in 2001.  In the primary that year, he faced three opponents (at least one of whom is more progressive--the other two I don't know) and won with a 40 percent plurality.  A serious pro-choice primary challenger could definitely give Lynch a run for his money.

Another consideration is that Massachusetts is likely to lose a seat in Congress after the 2010 census.  Whose seat disappears and how the new districts are drawn will determine whether we're represented by true progressives or luke-warm pro-lifers.  This is a good example of how redistricting still matters in a state with an all-Democratic congressional delegation.

[ Parent ]
They're All Men? (4.00 / 1)
I see only 1 woman vote for Stupak? Can't tell with the other lists. As someone noted, this could easily be spun as repressive male mullahs voting to control uppity women. It truly is shameful.  
Marcy Kaptur and Kathleen Dahlkemper make 2, but your point remains. (4.00 / 1)
Without more women Reps and Senators, the Dems absolutely cannot represent their base. Per dreaminonempty's recent map, as well as, y'know, basic observation, their base is not made of the white men that continue to dominate party leadership
[ Parent ]
I feel tricked by the House leadership. (4.00 / 1)
Is this Nancy's and/or Steny's doing?  For them to not know this would pass is impossible.

Allowing them both to come to the floor was a horribly cruel choice to force Democratic women in particular to make- womens rights v. better health care for all.
Where the fuck were there heads??

I've personally been caught up in the moment to fight for the underlying bill and actually succeeded in helping to turn my Congresswoman Kirkpatrick around, never even thinking about Stupak's Amendment showing up in the middle of the night. That sounds like a Steny Hoyer move..
Had I known I would NOT have gotten involved.

I'm furious, feel duped and think many other women feel the same. Those involved will pay.

 

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.

Dems who voted for the Stupak amendment to restrict women's rights. | 55 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox