Stupak on board (?)

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 13:08


Reports everywhere now are saying that Bart Stupak is a "yes," agreeing to some sort of deal on an executive order.  If he brings his entire bloc with him, as appears likely, that would seal health reform passage.

What is not clear at this point is what Democrats gave up to get him on board.  More details as those come in.

Additionally, as the House starts debate, this is an open thread to discuss.

Update--CNN reports Stupak still a "no" Per BooMan:

CNN says Stupak is still a 'no.'

Also, Brian Baird is now a "yes."  That makes eight "no to yes." With Marcy Kaptur staying at a "yes," Dems would only need three of the nine other Stuapk bloc to pass the bill. The executive order deal, whatever it is, has probably secured that.

Chris Bowers :: Stupak on board (?)

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Stupak on board (?) | 31 comments
Never has the phrase "the devil is in the details" (4.00 / 3)
ever seemed more timely.
What did Dems agree to? (0.00 / 0)
A shitburger on moldy flatbread
I don't understand. Why does it matter what they agree to? (4.00 / 2)
This is a good plan that must be passed at all cost or doom will follow.  
A thought or two (4.00 / 2)

 I'm not as down on Stupak as most here are, mostly because he IS a good progressive Dem on most issues (unlike, say, Dan Boren, who's a dick on just about everything). I'm glad he's on board.

 But Stupak could have introduced all the anti-abortion legislation he wanted to when the Republicans had absolute control of Washington. The legislation would have sailed through without a fight, and Stupak would have been a Village hero -- nothing makes Chris Matthews get all a-tingly more than Democrats who betray their base. He never did any of that -- on this issue he supposedly cares So Deeply about.

 So I'm not really sure Stupak's obstructionism was really about abortion. Like current "deficit hawks" who voted for the Iraq War, it smacks as simply a convenient frame to adopt for media consumption; a ready excuse to vote against health care reform, because it's too crass for a Democrat to publicly say he's in bed with the insurance industry.

  Whatever Obama gave up might well keep the Hyde status quo. I suspect the concessions were elsewhere.

  But we'll see.

 

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

I assume it really is all about abortion for Stupak (0.00 / 0)
Because he really does have a record of support for health care reform and a tendency toward populist anti-corporate sentiment.  This is, after all, a guy who brags that he has repeatedly offered amendments to repeal the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption over the years.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
My impression is that it's been more of Stupak trying to extend his fifteen minutes of fame (0.00 / 0)
....and some of his misogynist comments are unforgivable.

I hope he is successfully primaried.

[ Parent ]
Excuse if I don't feel reassured that my reproductive rights are in the hands of the WH and Bart Stupak (4.00 / 8)
 bet the number is over 216 by a significant amount and this executive order giveaway was never necessary

Why is the WH so eager to make deals that are neither absolutely necessary but do put women's reproductive rights in play?

The choice movement thought that a Democratic president would advance the course of reproductive rights, not use it as a throwaway to appease the right.  In the stimulus package the first thing that the president had personally thrown overboard were contraceptive coverage under Medicare...

The Democratic platform is for federal funding for abortions and says women should not be discriminated against.  

I can not imagine an executive order that does not create additional and perhaps insurmountable hurdles for women to be able to have control over their reproductive life and therefore be full and equal members of a democratic society.

In my opinion the executive order that the WH offered was not necessary...Why?  because Marcy Kaptur is voting yes with no confirmed executive order.

Offering them that empowered them; they would have ripe for being picked off since they would not not be a bloc, and they voted for it last time.

Executive orders would mean a number of things.  It is very hard for it to not change the existing legislative scheme or political agreement.

Nelson is tied to Hyde, if Hyde is not authorized or even repealed, Nelson is not authorized.  

Going after Hyde legislatively would no no longer be sufficient, the executive order now becomes a politcal football like the global gag rule...and would require its rescission.

Depending on how it's wirtten, it could give a Republican president the ability to reimpose Hyde even if Congress doesn't put it in the budget.

It opens up a Pandora's box and it's bad negotiating on the part of the WH, once more offering the right more than was necessary

After Nancy Pelosi refused to negotiate with Stupak, the WH should not have once more gone back to the well of trading away women's reproductive  rights

After all it was the WH was pushing that Stupak's enrollment bill should have be added to the bill.  It was only the prochoice caucus's revolt that ended that.  But the WH is still the pressure generator on dealing with Hyde.

Excuse if I don't feel reassured that my reproductive rights are in the hands of the WH and Bart Stupak

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

they should pick off his allies and leave him and exec order in the dust (0.00 / 0)
Taniel Even if Stupak decides to stick to "no" after all (as CNN reports he might), Pelosi has never needed Stupak himself but his 5-8 allies.

a tweet which is true...don't need stupak, divide and conquer

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

Planned Parenthood thrown under the bus? (4.00 / 2)
Details of what the order will contain are not known. Yesterday the  Washington Post said that "it is likely at the very least to restate Obama's commitment to upholding the Hyde Amendment."

Right now, the Hyde Amendment has to be renewed each year in the Appropriations bill.  Having a Democratic President state it in the form of an Executive Order would be quite a coup for anti-abortion activists.

But Stupak has been after more than just Hyde.    The health care bill contains $10 billion for Bernie Sanders' community clinics, which would begin immediately rather than waiting until 2014.  Planned Parenthood had pledged their support for the bill with the knowledge that much of that money would be going to their clinics, but would not be used for abortion services.  However Stupak has pursuing the agenda of  American's United for Life, who want a commitment that no money go toward Planned Parenthood clinics regardless of what it is used for.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.c...
maybe (4.00 / 1)
Executive Order Details Possibly Leaked

By: David Dayen Sunday March 21, 2010 9:53 am

K-Lo thinks she has an early copy of that executive order (which she writes as "The Executiive Order" - and she's the editor-in-chief of National Review) on abortion funding. There's no way to authenticate this, but it sounds like a reiteration of the Hyde Amendment, and in particular applies it to community health centers. This could potentially tie up some Planned Parenthood clinics, although that's somewhat unclear.

http://news.firedoglake.com/20...
[ Parent ]
As i read it it extends Hyde (0.00 / 0)
to community health centers.  They can offer abortion services, but they cannot use federal funds to provide them.  There is also a provision which means health care personnel don't have to offer abortion services if they are personally opposed.

[ Parent ]
it also ensures that any subsidies provided don't cover abortion provision (0.00 / 0)
i don't know if that is in existing legislation (i assume it is) but whatever expanded coverage is offered worsens this.  I note the irony that this is a good demonstration of the power of single payer.
[ Parent ]
It is (0.00 / 0)
I think.  It should be noted that Insurance Companies can still offer to cover abortion, federal dollars just can't go to pay for it.
[ Parent ]
right (0.00 / 0)
i.e. the limitation on reproductive health and control over their bodies applies most to working class and poor women.  
[ Parent ]
re: read (4.00 / 2)
There is also a provision which means health care personnel don't have to offer abortion services if they are personally opposed.

the pro-life intimidation forces are happy

[ Parent ]
This will make it a lot easier to intimidate HC workers. (0.00 / 0)
Which is the whole point of that provision.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

[ Parent ]
unclear whether it applies to individuals working there (4.00 / 1)
that would be terrible..a real ability to destroy the abilty of these centers to function

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
re: clinics (0.00 / 0)
that would be terrible..a real ability to destroy the abilty of these centers to function

cross another victory off the list

[ Parent ]
I can't see how someone (0.00 / 0)
can offer medical services and not tell the patient about all of their medical options.

But then I am just a lawyer duty bound to represent my client.

[ Parent ]
that isn't what it could mean (4.00 / 1)
Giving individuals the right is like the Bush published HHS rule which allowed individuals to REFUSE to tell people of their options.

Like a women's clinic couldn't refuse to hire someone who who's anti choice and then that person would REFUSE to tell women that abortion is availble if not at their clinic but elsewhere.

A one person rights and the Civil Rights Division enforcement would possibly give anti choicers the ability  to file complaints and force clinics to hire people who refused to do their jobs.

That's why individual conscience clause protection is so dangerous.

And it's a one way street for conscience clause protection.  It doesn't protect those who offer abortion from harassment, only those who refuse to offer abortion.

If the exec order has individual, which I read it and I didn't see it immediately, that would be really bad.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Don't forget also that money is fungible. (0.00 / 0)
So - any health care clinic that also receives federal funding cannot offer abortions, no?

How many community health centers don't receive any amount of federal funds?

[ Parent ]
I don't know (0.00 / 0)
I THINK they still can, but honestly I don't no.
[ Parent ]
Nefarious interests can wreak havoc on centers that try to thread that needle. (0.00 / 0)
My guess is that in any area in which there are hostile groups looking to damage these centers, there will be accusations, lawsuits and whatnot until all access to family planning services goes away.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

[ Parent ]
perhaps (0.00 / 0)
we wait to react once we have details to react to?

The Hill has an articel that Stupak is still a no... (0.00 / 0)
...but is negotiating:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

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!

Roll Call seconds it... (0.00 / 0)
Dem leaders say that deal still not reached...\

http://www.rollcall.com/news/4...

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 ]
Flashback! (4.00 / 5)
An FDL commentator pointed to this from Polifact: [emphasis added]

In a July 17, 2007, appearance before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Obama said the following: "In my mind, reproductive care is essential care. It is basic care, so it is at the center and at the heart of the plan that I propose. Essentially what we're doing is, we're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services and disease management services, because part of our interest is to make sure that we're putting more money into preventive care."

Oooops!

What if politicians got pregnant ever time they told a lie?

What would the politics of "personal responsibility" look like then?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

by this logic... (4.00 / 2)
In so far as Obama didn't get everything he "promised" would be in the health care bill, he was lying. But if this is one of the compromises that was needed to pass the bill, then the other alternative would have been to not pass a bill at all. In which case, according to your logic, the whole promise of doing health reform would have been a lie.
[ Parent ]
But Obama Himself Called It "Central" (4.00 / 2)
Not just reproductive rights, but a public plan.

What does any promise mean if one like this is broken?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Um, he was, in fact, lying. (4.00 / 2)
He never made any effort whatsoever to deliver on his "promises." Well, except the promises he made to AHIP and PhRMA.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

[ Parent ]
re: pp (0.00 / 0)
What if politicians got pregnant ever time they told a lie?

michelle would be very busy

[ Parent ]
Stupak on board (?) | 31 comments
Start a Petition »





Donate to Open Left


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox