"The Leaders expect all House Democratic members to support this historic bill, and to do so without demanding new restrictions on women's rights" the spokesman said in an email. "There will be situations where we have some disagreement, but those Members who held the party's top legislative priority in order to send women's rights backward, it was a very serious matter and one that the Steering Committee will consider."
Pretty impressive. Good to see Democrats starting to enforce some party discipline in order to stand up for core values.
Or, this is another lame April Fool's joke, comparing how Republican House leaders are actually threatening to revoke committee seats over something as minor as earmarks, but Democrats won't take action against the most serious instance of legislation hostage taking the party has experienced in a decade.
I for one am not surprised at the reports surfacing over the last twenty four hours that there have been attacks, threats and vandalism aimed at Democrats who voted in favor of health care reform. As of this morning there are ten such reported cases, including one that suggested Congressmen (D-MI) should drown himself. Congresswoman Giffords (D-AZ) had the windows of her hometown office broken by some unidentified projectile. There has also been a report of an attack on a Congressman's family member that if accurate, would constitute a federal crime. Having witnessed Congressmen and Senators being spit upon and subject to racial and homosexual slurs by anti-government fanatics this past weekend, why would anyone be surprised by this latest display of incivility?
Shortly after the inauguration of Barack Obama the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning that an increase in domestic anti-government violence was a distinct possibility. This report was the subject of much derision from the Right at the time but consider what has happened since then. Since the election of Barack Obama we have had a guy in Pittsburg kill policemen because he was angry that the government was now "Run by Jews" and that it would "take his guns away". We had a guy kill a doctor who performed abortions and then try to frame himself as a patriot in so doing. Sorry but murder is not patriotic. We had a murder at the Holocaust Museum by an individual who when captured said: "This is how you'll get my guns from me". Another anti-government zealot crashed his plane into the IRS building in Austin Texas as if that would in some way actually contribute to the abolition of the agency. In reality, all that this action accomplished was the killing of an innocent man. Only the Pentagon subway stop shooting can legitimately be classified as the work of a mentally incapacitated person, regardless of his anti-government rant. All summer long we had to watch the farcical spectacle of Tea Party patriots playing minuteman by bringing loaded weapons to rallies while holding signs that suggested it was time for a second American Revolution. There are many who will read this and try to make an argument that political violence is now somehow justified, alluding to some sort of Revolutionary War fantasy. There has been all manner of infatuation with ideas of an armed "citizens revolt"; a military coup, even talk of an attempt on the life of the President, all of it being nothing more than the pipe dream of people who have now become political dead enders. It is to be noted by all that these far right fanatics have been aided and abetted in their dangerous fantasies by the reckless rhetoric of Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the professional political entertainers on the far right who masquerade as legitimate political commentators.
The Republican Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-OH) has already issued a statement condemning violence on the floor of the House of Representatives. That is surely commendable as no informed observer of American politics would for a moment believe that the G.O.P. is in favor of such a thing. But I would also urge Congressman Boehner to direct his comments to some in his own party, like Michele Bachmann (R-MN) or those like her who have a history of incendiary anti-government rhetoric in their political track record. When an elected official engages in blatantly reckless and inflammatory behavior it only serves to stoke up the sentiments of those on the far right fringe and can serve, in their minds, as a "call to action." In his assessment of the Republican debacle that has arisen from the passage of health care reform, the veteran conservative commentator David Frum observed: "We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat. There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible... So today's defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, its mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, its Waterloo all right: ours." The degree to which increasing levels of political violence detracts or derails the message of the Republican Party in the future is unknowable at this time. But for an organization that is polling the lowest favorability numbers in its history, it is just one more reason for people to disregard the G.O.P. message on Election Day and one more problem the Republican Party can do without.
There will be those on the Right who will issue the counter argument that all one need do is to look back to the sixties and you will find plenty of violence perpetrated by the left. Some will conjure up the various red scares of the past and say that there has been more than on instance in American history where Communists in labor unions and among university professors sought to overthrow or subvert the American way of life. But you can tally up all of the left wing violence in the history of this country and you won't put a dent in the death toll from the Oklahoma City Bombing, an act perpetrated by a violently anti-government fanatic. It is for that reason that it is now the patriotic duty of every American to stand up to the fanatics on the far right, be it at political rallies, on the streets, in the blogs, by calling in to talk radio, by text messaging the Glenn Beck show, etc., or by writing to the media organizations that sanction such programming and registering you opposition to this virulent rhetoric that only serves to fuel politically driven violence and intolerance. The next time some right wing crackpot tells you that he and his compatriots are going to "take back their country" ask them from whom, the people who voted in the majority for change. It is time for Progressives to stand up to thugs and fanatics of any stripe, be they far to either the left or right, and to no longer tolerate threats of violence on the part of those who having lost out in the political arena, have chosen to attempt change through extra legal means.
In an interview following the attack on her office, Congresswoman Giffords said that America was a beacon around the world because we create change via the ballot box and not through political violence and intimidation. In thinking back upon much of the rhetoric from the right that has surrounded the advent of the Obama Administration, I can not help but to recall the warning that Sinclair Lewis made back in the 1930s: "If Fascism ever comes to the United States it will be wrapped in the flag and borne upon a crucifix". In spite of the fact that the country was in a far more perilous position then than it is now, Lewis' words were as relevant today as they were in the midst of the Great Depression and they should be on the minds of every true American patriot.
Yesterday, President Obama signed health care reform into law. As Mike Lillis explains in the Washington Independent, the bill now proceeds to the Senate for reconciliation. The whole process could be complete by the end of the week. Republicans and their allies have already moved to challenge reform in court.
Legal challenges
The fight is far from over, however. Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly notes that Republicans have already filed papers to challenge health care reform in court. The Justice Department has pledged to vigorously defend health care reform, according to Zach Roth of TPM Muckraker.
The legal arguments against health care reform center around the constitutionality of an individual mandate, i.e., the requirement that everyone must carry health insurance. This argument is specious. The bill characterizes the mandatory payments as a tax, and imposes a fine for those who don't pay their insurance tax. There is no question that Congress has the authority to levy taxes in support of the general welfare and providing health insurance to the people easily meets that legal criterion.
Dave Weigel of the Washington Independent reviews some of the other formidable legal barriers to challenging health care reform in court. But take heart, teabaggers! Birther-dentist-lawyer Orly Taitz is on the case.
Violent outbursts from reform opponents
Some anti-reform activists have resorted to intimidation. Five Democratic offices were vandalized in the days surrounding the House vote, as Justin Elliott reports for TPM Muckraker. Someone hurled a brick through the window of the Niagara office of Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the chair of the powerful House Rules Committee.
Slaughter is notorious on the right for drawing up the controversial "deem and pass" strategy for moving the bill forward. Her plan was never put into action, but she has become a target anyway. Another Democratic office in Slaughter's district was damaged by a brick bearing a quote from conservative icon Barry Goldwater: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."
Elliott notes that a conservative blogger in Alabama is doing his best to incite similar attacks, though it's not clear whether he instigated any of the original five:
...Blogger Mike Vanderboegh has been tracking the breaking of windows at Dem offices after issuing a call Friday: "To all modern Sons of Liberty: THIS is your time. Break their windows. Break them NOW."
Reproductive rights take a hit
Anti-abortion extremist Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) failed to get his ultra-restrictive abortion language inserted into the health care bill, but the final bill does impede health insurance coverage for abortion.
For example, those who choose abortion coverage will have to write two checks: One for their regular premium and one for a dollar to go into a separate abortion coverage fund. Many analysts fear that the extra hassles will discourage private insurers from covering abortion at all. Pro-choice activists were in a weaker negotiating position because, unlike Stupak and his allies, they weren't prepared to kill health reform if their demands weren't met.
The greater good?
Now that health care reform is safely signed into law, the pro-choice movement is stepping back and asking itself some tough questions.
In The Nation, Katha Pollitt argues that the pro-choice movement deserves to be rewarded for sacrificing its own agenda for the greater good. She suggests that the Democrats could reward the reproductive rights movement by fully funding the Violence Against Women Act, addressing maternal mortality and other policy changes to advance women's health and freedom.
Jos of Feministing counters that with their go along to get along attitude pro-choice groups have only demonstrated that they can be ignored with impunity: "You don't get rewarded for demonstrating a lack of political power, you get further marginalized."
At RH Reality Check, Megan Carpentier argues that national pro-choice organization like NARAL and Planned Parenthood ceded their leverage too easily. While anti-choicers were beefing up their lobbying presence in Washington, major pro-choice groups were scaling back. Pro-choice groups compromised early and easily, perhaps because they were overly confident that their service to the Democratic cause would be rewarded in the end.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Last night, the House of Representatives passed comprehensive health care reform after more than a year of fierce debate. The sweeping legislation will extend coverage to 32 million Americans, curb the worst abuses of the private insurance industry, and attempt to contain spiraling health care costs.
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.
Stupak says he is negotiating with the leadership on the bill:
This morning, during an appearance on Good Morning America, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) reaffirmed that he might vote for the Senate health care bill if Democrats pass the Stupak abortion amendment as a separate measure. Stupak said that Democrats have shown a "renewed" interest in tying his amendment to the Senate bill
Pelosi says she isn't negotiating:
ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked about Bart Stupak's suggestion that there could be another bill to address abortion funding and she said, "I haven't heard any of that."
"If you don't want federal funding for abortion... and you want to have a health care bill," she said. "This is it."
Leaving the he said / she said aside for the moment, Stupak still appears to hold the balance on the bill. He may not have a dozen members anymore, but the vote is so close he doesn't need that many anymore to sink the bill.
To pass the bill, the leadership needs to have only one less "no to yes" votes than "yes to no" votes. Right now, "yes to no" is running at least four ahead, and at least six of the "yes to no" votes are cited the lack of the Stupak amendment as their main rationale.
What this means is that, at least based on public whip counts, there isn't a clear path to passage at this point without either getting the Stupak group to cave, or caving to the Stupak group. And it isn't even clear if Democrats could make a deal with Stupak if they wanted to, given both opposition in the Senate, the threat of losing new "no to yes" votes such as Betsy Markey, and the rules on reconciliation generally.
I don't have any particularly deep insight into this, or any clever solutions. It is just worth noting that the Stupak situation is far from settled at this point.
I'm not the only woman in the country who once had a partner who took my paychecks and deposited them in an account that I had no access to; not by debit card, not by checkbook. That started the first year we were married, when I was 18 and I balanced our checkbook wrong. Did I get to revoke his bank privileges later on when he would be late with rent, didn't pay our utility bills, or threw money away on expensive outings and crazy schemes? No.
Years later, at 22, I still had to ask for lunch money every week to take to work, something he'd often conveniently forget about if he was in a bad mood. He was often in a bad mood. My workweek lunch money regularly came out of the change jar and only covered vending machine snacks.
If I'd had a child from that relationship, one way or another, it would have meant two decades of that creep still messing with my head on a daily basis--a fate I was saved from only by a miscarriage brought on by a 2 lb. ovarian cyst, which my Catholic hospital doctor told me couldn't be operated on unless I did miscarry on my own--so lucky me. And he only hit me once in five years, threatened and starved me, so I didn't have it nearly as bad as some of the women for whom the Senate abortion coverage restrictions might as well be a hand covering their mouths and holding them down.
Under the Senate system which makes abortion part of the initial purchasing decision, a woman's employer, male partner or parents can all potentially prevent her getting insurance coverage for it, whereas now, it usually doesn't come up because most private plans just cover it. Now, of the one in three women likely to need an abortion in her life, millions of women never have to have that conversation. Under the current wording of the health bill, that second check is the federal spousal and parental notification law that never managed to pass.
Then if the administrative expenses and familial approval weren't enough, the second check creates a stigmatizing paper trail for anyone worried about public pressure or vulnerable to retribution by disapproving superiors. Even people who might support abortion might be pressured into dropping plans that cover it and one way or another, abortion coverage will end. That's always been the point of both the Stupak amendment and Nelson's Senate compromise, which will simply work more slowly to eradicate insurance coverage of abortion.
And you might say, well, it's just writing another check for $1. Or you might say, hey, even if the insurance doesn't cover abortion, lots of women will still be able to afford it. And then I'll tell you, look, you don't get it, that's not the point.
Because he used to take my lunch money, and I had nothing, nothing, that he would not allow, no matter what our household income was.
Women, who earn less, who are commonly responsible for the most time-consuming parts of the parenting saga, who are discriminated against by their employers for being parents, who are more likely to be abused, who bear all the health risks of pregnancy and childbirth, can never be fully equal in a society that doesn't prioritize and normalize our access to all forms of reproductive health care. When our health care is stigmatized, we are stigmatized. When it seems normal that men we don't know get to decide if we'll be forced into a two decade commitment, it's only natural that men we do know might think they have the right to decide that for us, too.
If you still want to pass this health insurance reform bill, and I understand why so many people do, understand the cost. Somewhere, right now, he's taking her lunch money, and this bill will let him force her into motherhood, too.
Weekly Pulse: Pelosi Makes Her Move; GOP Rep. Calls for Coup
By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has laid out a strategy to pass health care reform in the next couple of days by allowing the House to vote on the details of the reconciliation package instead of the Senate bill itself. As usual, progressives are fretting that winning will make them look bad. On the other hand, conservatives are baying for blood and calling for revolution.
'Deem and pass'
Nick Baumann of Mother Jones discusses the parliamentary tactic known as "deem and pass" (D&P), which House Democrats plan to use to avoid voting for the Senate bill before the Senate fixes the bill through reconciliation. The House doesn't want to sign a blank check. If the health care bill passes the House first, there's no guarantee that the Senate will make the fixes as promised.
Originally, the hope was that the Senate could do reconciliation first. The problem is that you can't pass a bill to amend a bill that isn't law yet. That would be like putting the cart before the horse. To clear that hurdle, the House will invoke a rule that deems that Senate bill to have passed if and when the House passes the reconciliation package. It's sort of like backdating a check. Ryan Grim explains the process in more detail on Democracy Now!
D&P does not equal treason
Progressives like Kevin Drum worry that D&P will make the Democrats look bad. Meanwhile, the Tea Party crowd is calling for Nancy Pelosi to be tried for treason, as TPM reports. The bottom line is that D&P is no big deal. Republicans used the process 36 times in 2005 and 2006; Democrats used it 49 times in 2007 and 2008. D&P is constitutional. We know because it has already been upheld by the Supreme Court. Kevin Drum writes, "If you have a life, you don't care about the subject of this post and have never heard of it."
Teabag revolution
There is no joy in Tea Party Land, as Dave Weigel reports in the Washington Independent. The tea baggers are frantically lobbying to stop the bill, but the reality is starting to sink in. Their leaders are shifting from trying to kill the bill to planning the tantrum they're going to throw when it passes:
While many held out hope that plans to pass the Senate's version of reform in the House would stall out, others pondered their next steps. Some, like Rep. Steve King (R-IA), took a dark view of what might come.
"Right now, they're civil, because they think they have a chance of stopping this bill," said King to reporters, waving his arm at a pack of "People's Surge" activists forming a line to enter the Cannon House Office Building. "The reason we don't have violence in this country like they do in dictatorships is because we have votes, and our leaders listen to their constituents. Now we're in a situation where the leaders are defying the people!" Later, King would expand on those remarks and speculate on a possible anti-Washington revolt in which Tea Parties would "fill the streets" of the capital.
Sounds like King is calling for a revolution, doesn't it? As it turns out, that's exactly what he says he wants if health care reform passes. Eric Kleefeld of TPMDC reports that King is hoping for something akin to the uprising that overthrew the Communists in Prague in 1989. "Fill this city up, fill this city, jam this place full so that they can't get in, they can't get out and they will have to capitulate to the will of the American people," King said in an interview with the Huffington Post.
Women and health care reform
Health care reform seems poised to pass. Amid the heady excitement, there's a sense of gloom in the reproductive rights community. Bart Stupak was defeated, but health care reform will probably end private insurance coverage for abortion.
In The American Prospect, Michelle Goldberg urges feminists to support reform anyway. She argues that the women suffer disproportionately under the status quo. If reform passes, it will insure 17 million previously uninsured women. Expanding health care coverage might help reverse rising maternal mortality rates in the United States.
A recent report by Amnesty International found that at least two women die in childbirth every day in the U.S., a much higher rate than most developed countries. The anti-choicers had the advantage because they were willing to kill health reform over abortion. The pro-choice faction did not allow itself the luxury of nihilism.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
In response to a third-hand report that he would vote against the Senate health reform bill because it lacked the Stupak language, Representative Tom Perriello just released this statement saying the report was not accurate. Here is a snippet:
"I have plenty of serious problems with the Senate bill and, until I see the final language, I cannot take a position on final passage. But the existing language on abortion in the current Senate bill meets the pledge I made to ensure no federal funding for abortion in this health care bill."
So, to everyone's surprise, a third-hand report from the National Review wasn't correct.
Now that it has been confirmed the House leadership is going around the Stupak bloc, it appears the Stupak bloc is crumbling. Check out this CQ article where four potential Stupak bloc members disavow their membership:
Charlie Wilson , D-Ohio, who in November supported a Stupak-sponsored abortion amendment to the House-passed health care package ( HR 3962 ) and passage of the amended bill, is among those who has reconsidered his position. He said Thursday he is willing to vote for the Senate bill. Wilson said that while he would welcome any additional guarantee that no federal funds would be used to pay for abortions, he will not withhold his support if the bill is not changed.
"I'm opposed to abortion, and I think the language in there is pretty clear that it is not something that pays for abortion," he said [...]
Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, said she wanted the abortion language changed, but stopped short of saying it is a deal-breaker for her. "I would not easily give over my vote for the bill" if changes are not made, she said.
An aide to James L. Oberstar , also previously thought to be in Stupak's group, said the Minnesota Democrat is undecided. "He hasn't ruled out anything, including voting for the Senate bill if that's an interim step to a better compromise," said spokesman John Schadl.
A spokesman for Steve Driehaus , an Ohio Democrat, said his boss has not changed his position opposing federal funding for abortion but had not decided how to vote. "He'll decide how he'll vote once he knows exactly what the House will be considering," press secretary Tim Mulvey said in an e-mail.
Unless a member of Congress says they will vote against the bill without the Stupak amendment, then that member of Congress is not in the Stupak bloc. These four members--Dreihaus, Kaptur, Oberstar and Wilson--all equivocate here. There is simply no "Stupak or else" language coming from their offices. They are not Stupak bloc.
Seemingly Stupak bloc (6) Marion Berry (AR-01)
Joseph Cao (LA-02)
Kath Dahlkemper (PA-03)
Joe Donnelly (IN-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Bart Stupak (MI-01)
Possible Stupak bloc (8) Chris Carney (PA-10)
Jerry Costello (IL-12)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Alan Mollohan (WV-01)
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Not Stupak bloc (8) Steve Driehaus (OH-01)
Paul Kanjorski (PA-12)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Dale Kildee (MI-05)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Jim Oberstar (MN-08)
Charlie Wilson (OH-06)
The most significant shift comes from Steve Driehaus, who had told The Hill he was in the Stupak bloc. Apparently that wasn't true. This reminds me of something Matthew Yglesias tweeted earlier today:
Dem public option doubletalk highlights weakness of netroots "whip count" strategies -- Senators are very willing to lie.
Apparently, they can lie about holding to their right-wing demands, too. Or call it "wiggle" room, if you will. Whatever you call it, one thing I have learned over the past few years is that many members of Congress, especially the moderate ones, are not leaders. They avoid taking public positions, leave themselves tons of wiggle room, and outright flip their positions all the time. It definitely is a weakness of the whip counts, but it is still useful to try that shine a light on Congress through those counts.
I'm delighted that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-USCCB) is getting a pro-choice primary challenger, Connie Saltonstall, to take him to task for shafting his constituents on health care in order to shaft the nation's entire female population on the question of their autonomy.
It's been a long time since the days when it was common for middle-class, adult white women in the US to die from desperate, illegal abortions, so the nation forgets how bad it used to be. Stupak has capitalized on that, on the acceptability of misogyny, in order to turn himself from 'Bart who?' to the man that's helping Catholic Bishops all over the country change the subject away from their decades-long tolerance of pedophilia and towards their attempt to impose theocracy.
Though if you were looking, you'd be able to tell that banning abortion was a cruel, abuse-enabling, sometimes deadly thing to do to women. Stupak doesn't care about that, nor does much of the rest of Congress. The president doesn't seem very bothered by it, either.
But hey, most of them can't get pregnant, so why should they give a damn?
Michael Frias from Kirkpatrick staff says she's def not a Stupak.
Good-that reduces the possible list of Stupak bloc members to 6 definite and 12 maybes. Here is the ongoing count:
Definite Stupak bloc (6) Marion Berry (AR-01)
Joseph Cao (LA-02)
Kath Dahlkemper (PA-03)
Steve Driehaus (OH-01)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Bart Stupak (MI-01)
Not Stupak bloc (3) Dale Kildee (MI-05)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Jim Oberstar (MN-08)
Rumored, but unconfirmed, Stupak bloc (12) Chris Carney (PA-10)
Jerry Costello (IL-12)
Joe Donnelly (IN-02)
Mike Doyle (PA-14)
Brad Ellsworth (IN-08)
Baron Hill (IN-09)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Paul Kanjorski (PA-12)
Alan Mollohan (WV-01)
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Charlie Wilson (OH-06)
The House of Representatives is pretty far along in drafting a reconciliation "fix" to the Senate health reform bill, which they currently plan to pass a couple days after passing the Senate health reform bill. Speaker Pelosi, four days ago:
And, indeed, leadership is pressing ahead with the legislative process. Earlier today, outside of a caucus meeting, Pelosi said Democrats had already drafted much of a reconciliation bill, meant to amend the Senate package, and sent "a bunch" of its legislative language to CBO.
The Senate seemingly has enough votes to pass a reconciliation bill now. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Senate and the House agree on what should be in the reconciliation bill, and the House will undoubtedly wait on passage until such an agreement is reached. However, it still means that the reconciliation "fix" to the Senate health reform bill is not the main obstacle to passing health reform.
By far the bigger obstacle to passing health reform remains Bart Stupak's bloc. As this blog and many others have recounted on numerous occasions, Stupak supposedly has a group of about a dozen Democrats who voted "yes" on the health reform bill in November, but who will vote "no" this time around because the bill lacks Stupak's regressive language on reproductive rights.
In an attempt to circumvent this bloc, the House leadership seems to have secured the votes of at least three House Democrats who voted "no" in November: Jason Altmire, Brian Baird, and Bart Gordon. Still, that is nowhere near enough to cancel out a dozen members of the Stupak bloc. Additionally, Representative Mike Arcuri appears to be a non-Stupak bloc member who is flipping from "yes" to "no."
One problem is that no one seems to know exactly who is in the Stupak bloc. There is a lot of speculation, but little confirmation. What little information we do have is:
Bart Stupak is definitely in the bloc
Joseph Cao says he will not vote for health reform unless it contains the Stupak language, so he is in the bloc.
Dale Kildee is not in the bloc, as Brian Beutler confirms:
However, Kildee's office tells me that his name doesn't belong on the list--he's still reviewing the Senate language.
Other than that, we have a list of about 15 theoretical members of the bloc, with no confirmation one way or the other. Here they are:
14 Dems who have voted with Stupak so far (which might be coincidental)
Carney (PA-10)
Costello (IL-12)
Dahlkemper (PA-03)
Donnelly (IN-02)
Doyle (PA-14)
Driehaus (OH-01)
Ellsworth (IN-08)
Hill (IN-09)
Kanjorski (PA-12)
Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Lipinski (IL-03)
Mollohan (WV-01)
Oberstar (MN-08)
Rahall (WV-03)
Three other members accused of being in the bloc Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
Charlie Wilson (OH-06)
Given that is only 17 possible names, why don't we just call up these offices and ask something akin to the following question:
Is Representative [insert name here] insisting that language akin to the Stupak amendment be passed as a precondition for considering support of the health reform bill?
Or something like that. It is only seventeen names, so it should be something that even a small news organization can pull off. Further, the nature of the issue means that even an equivocation from these Congressional offices is actually a "no," making this a particularly easy bit of news gathering. Either they are demanding the Stupak amendment as a precondition for considering the bill, or they aren't. There is no "maybe" on this one.
The number for the Congressional switchboard is 1-866-220-0044. I don't see any reason why we can't get all seventeen of these members on record today. People deserve to know who the members of the Stupak bloc actually are.
The current step in the health reform sausage factory involves finding enough votes for the House to pass the Senate health reform bill and then, a few days later, a budget reconciliation "fix" to that health reform bill (see my post from earlier today for a more detailed overview of the process, and where the public option fits into that process).
Rounding up the votes in the House is proving difficult, with few public successes. Here are the recent developments (more in the extended entry):
Who are the members of Bart Stupak's bloc? That is, which members of the House of Representatives will vote for health reform if it contains Stupak's regressive, restrictive language on reproductive rights, but will vote against it if it does not?
Lots of theories and speculation has been made to this effect, including my own. Now, however, I believe I can provide something much closer to definitive proof.
On the day the House voted on health reform in November, Stupak told the Huffington Post that his bloc of anti-choice Democrats proved their muscle in July by defeating the leadership on Roll Call 553.
Stupak said the Blue Dogs have gradually been sending a message to leadership and that much of it goes back to a previous vote involving an appropriations bill that Blue Dogs wanted to include pro-life language.
In July, the House considered a Financial Services Appropriations bill that would allow publicly-funded abortions in the District of Columbia. Stupak and allies were not allowed an amendment, so they sought to "take down the rule" -- in other words, round up enough votes to deny he bill a chance to get voted on on the floor. When time expired, the pro-lifers had prevailed. But Pelosi held the vote open for extra time and persuaded four members to switch their votes.
They didn't win in the end, Stupak said, but they accomplished their goal.
"We wanted to send a message," he said. "We went back and I said, 'See, I can take down your rule.'"
This information, presented by Bart Stupak himself, is actually enough to narrow the potential members of Stupak's bloc to 17. Given Stupak's comments, only members of the House who meet all three of the following conditions can be said to be part of his bloc:
Voted with Stupak on his demonstration effort in July (Roll Call 553). If someone was not with Stupak on his test vote, then that someone is not really with Stupak (or is at least malleable enough to be separated from Stupak).
Voted for the Stupak amendment on November 7th. (Roll Call 884). If they didn't vote for the Stupak amendment, then tautologically speaking they are not with Stupak.
Voted for the House health reform bill overall. (Roll Call 887). If they didn't vote for health reform even with the Stupak amendment, then their objections to the health reform bill are not Stupak related.
There are sixteen Democrats who meet all these criteria, plus one Republican. Only these 17 members of the House can arguably be claimed to Stupak swing votes, since every other member of the House already broke with Stupak on a key vote. Here is the list (more in the extended entry):
Today, President Barack Obama will deliver a speech to Congress outlining his plan to move forward on health care reform. The president is expected to advocate the use of budget reconciliation.
Art Levine of Working In These Times warns that some centrist Democrats are already getting cold feet on reconciliation. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, went on TV to declare reconciliation impossible. These guys just don't get it. It's reconciliation or defeat. There is no other way. Without reconciliation, the bill dies. Without a bill, the Democrats get massacred in the mid-term elections.
Health care reform to date
Quick recap: The House and the Senate have both passed health care reform bills. The original plan was to merge those two bills in a conference committee and send the final version back to both houses of Congress for a vote. However, the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate when Republican Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley in the special election in Massachusetts.
Once they recovered from their shell shock, Democrats reluctantly converged around Plan B: Let the House re-pass the Senate version of the bill, thereby skipping the step where the Senate votes on the conference report. However, the Senate bill could not pass the House in its current form. So, the Senate needs to tweak the bill to make it acceptable to the House-either before or after the House re-passes the Senate bill. In order to make those changes without getting filibustered, the Senate Democrats will have to insert the modifications through budget reconciliation, where measures pass by a simple majority. Whew!
Of course, the Republicans trying to paint Democrats as tyrants for using reconciliation. Nevermind that 16 of the 22 reconciliation bills passed since reconciliation was invented in 1974 were passed by Republican majorities.
Whither the Public Option?
Reconciliation would appear to give the public health insurance option a new lease on life. The House bill has a public option, but the Senate bill doesn't. The public option was traded away on the Senate side to forge the original filibuster-proof majority. As a procedural matter, the public option could easily be reinserted during reconciliation because it has such a direct impact on the federal budget, i.e., it would save the taxpayer a lot of money. The White House claims to support a public option. Yet Obama didn't propose one in his health care plan last week.
Some observers take that as a sign that the White House doesn't think the votes are there. (Cynics say it's proof the White House never cared about the public option in the first place.) Even Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) told radio host Ed Schultz that he can't support a public option for fear of killing the health care bill, according to Jason Hancock of the Iowa Independent. Harkin has been taking a lot of heat from progressives for refusing to join with other senators in signing a letter calling for a public option.
Abortion Storm Clouds
Speaker Nancy Pelosi had little to say about how she plans to overcome resistance within her own caucus on abortion and immigration issues within health reform, as Brian Beutler reports for TPMDC. Pelosi needs 216 votes to pass a bill. The original House bill only passed by 5 votes. Rabid anti-choice Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) claims to have assembled a coalition of like-minded Dems who consider the Senate's slightly less restrictive rules for abortion funding "unacceptable." There is no reliable public vote count on how many of these representatives, if any, would vote to kill health care over abortion. If they do, it would be purely out of spite. Abortion language can't be tweaked in reconciliation because it doesn't directly affect the budget.
Stupak and the myth of federal funding for abortions
In The Nation, Jessica Arons takes a closer look at Stupak's radical and misleading anti-choice rhetoric. The federal government is already legally barred from funding elective abortions, and nothing in the Senate bill would change that. Arons explains that the Senate bill would allow plans that participate in the federally-subsidized exchanges to offer abortion coverage provided that customers buy that coverage with their own money, not with subsidized federal dollars. If the government pays 30% of the cost of the policy and the consumer pays 60%, the money for abortion coverage comes out of the consumer's end.
There's a long tradition of segregating government money. Both Planned Parenthood and Catholic hospitals get federal funds. By law, Planned Parenthood can't use that money to perform abortions, but it can use it to do pap smears and offer other health care. By the same token, a Catholic hospital can take federal money to provide medical care, but not to proselytize to patients. Arons ably satirizes Stupak's extreme position:
If everyone thought like Bart Stupak, a woman seeking an abortion:
(1) would not be able to take a public bus or commuter train to an abortion clinic, even if she paid her own fare;
(2) would not be able to drive on public roads to a clinic, even if she drove her own car and paid for her own gas;
(3) would not be able to walk on public sidewalks to the clinic, even though she paid property taxes;
(4) would not be able to put her child in childcare while she was at the clinic if she received a tax credit that offset the cost of childcare;
(5) would not be able to take medicine at the clinic that was researched or developed by the government, even if she paid for the medicine herself.
Bunning backs down
In other health care news, AlterNet reports that yesterday Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) ended his one-man filibuster of the extension of a bill that would have prevented a 21% cut in Medicare reimbursement rates and extended unemployment benefits while the Senate finalizes the jobs bill. Bunning caved under pressure from his own party. Even Republicans realized that there was no political percentage in stiffing doctors and the unemployed.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
On Wednesday, President Obama will offer detail on his vision for the final procedural path, and substantive agreement, for completing health reform:
President Obama Wednesday will detail both the substance of his final health care reform legislation proposal and the process for getting it through Congress once and for all.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters during his daily briefing today that Obama will offer the pathway to final passage by outlining the "next steps." But Gibbs also dodged questions on specifics or how the president would help Speaker Nancy Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid secure enough votes in their chambers.
Here is what to expect from this announcement:
It will involve budget reconciliation. House Democrats are demanding a budget reconciliation fix to the Senate health care bill. Senate Democrats are nearly unanimous in being open to the idea. Last week, the White House released a proposal that can be passed through the reconciliation process. If health reform wasn't finished through reconciliation, it would be a massive shock.
It won't have a public option. The White House, Speaker Pelosi, and key public option supporters in the Senate (Harkin and Rockefeller) have all signaled that the reconciliation bill will not have a public option when it is introduced. So, the only way to pass a public option at this point is to have one added on the floor of the Senate via amendment to the reconciliation bill. Such an amendment would require only 51 votes for passage, and could be any type of public option as long as it was germane to the "Byrd rule." Jon Walker unpacks all of this in more detail, looks into the possibilities of forcing a vote on such an amendment.
Counting votes in the House. Given that 59 of the 60 Senators who voted for the health reform bill back in December are still in the Senate, getting 51 votes to pass a health reform bill through the Senate should not be difficult. Democrats could lose nine votes and still pass the bill-very, very doable. The real problem is passing a bill through the House, even with the Senate passing a "fix" to their bill.
Back in November, the bill passed the House by a vote of 220-215. However, since that time, three Representatives who voted for the bill are no longer in the House, and one who voted against the bill has also left. That makes the current county 217-214, with 216 needed for passage.
From that point, the trick is offsetting the Stupak bloc with non-Stupak Democrats who voted against the bill last time. This is possible, but it will be close. Back in November, Stupak had at least nine Democrats, and Republican Joseph Cao, with him. However, ten Democrats who voted against the bill last time have signaled they are open to voting for it this time. Speaker Pelosi is going to need all ten of those to pass the bill over the objections of the Stupak bloc.
The end is coming into focus. Wednesday is a very big say.
It is both small comfort, and an important lesson, for public option advocates that Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson have become the most unpopular and electorally imperiled members of the entire Senate. This has happened largely because of their hostage-taking actions on the healthcare bill.
Joe Lieberman's actions on the health care bill antagonized constituents both for and against it, and in the wake of that he finds his approval rating at just 25% with 67% of voters in the state disapproving of him.(...)
It's clear that his actions on the Senate health care bill have made a large contribution to his falling popularity. 68% of voters say they disagree with how he handled the issue to just 19% giving him support. Among people who support the health care bill 84% say they disapprove of Lieberman's actions but even among those opposed to the initiative 52% say they disagree with how Lieberman handled himself.
This isn't the first poll showing that Lieberman took a big hit over his backstab on the public option. Two weeks ago, CNN polling showed the exact same results, much to the mystification of D.C. political writers.
Lieberman's actions appealed to no one. Now, he is toast, even among Republicans. A warm body will defeat him in 2012.
If Governor Dave Heineman challenges Nelson for the Senate job, a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows the Republican would get 61% of the vote while Nelson would get just 30%. Nelson was reelected to a second Senate term in 2006 with 64% of the vote.
Nelson's health care vote is clearly dragging his numbers down. Just 17% of Nebraska voters approve of the deal their senator made on Medicaid in exchange for his vote in support of the plan.
Nelson, like Lieberman, did not make himself more popular among those who oppose the health care bill, or the public option, with his actions. Both supporters and opponents of both the health care bill and the public option were largely disgusted with what they viewed as personal power aggrandizement.
Their actions earned both Nelson and Lieberman featured appearances on Sunday D.C. talk shows, but it also made voters of all sorts loathe them. It would appear that people don't like members of Congress who take enormous pieces of legislation hostage for personal reasons. Nelson and Lieberman are now the most unpopular Senators in their home states in the entire country, far more unpopular than even Harry Reid, Chris Dodd or Blanche Lincoln.
All of this makes it quite amusing that ongoing hostage-taker, Bart Stupak, is strongly considering a run for Governor of Michigan. What a fool. It seems that he really believes that the only people who hate his hostage-taking actions are from New York City. The Nelson and Lieberman polling quoted above shows that very few people, whether in your home state or nationally, and whether among people who agree with your positions or not, like it when members of Congress take hostages in this manner.
Man, I hope Stupak does run for Governor. It would be an easy way to get him out of elected office altogether. It would also be nice to see another health care hostage-taker go down in flames, mystified about why people don't like him anymore.
Finally, I think this is a lesson for public option advocates, and our high-profile hostage-taking strategy called The Progressive Block. It seems clear to me now that a strategy like that only works if you build up public support for it (which we most definitely did not do among the Democratic primary electorate), or if the fight is far more low-profile (such as IMF funding in the Afghanistan supplemental). High-profile hostage taking just doesn't work from the left (or, as polling shows, from the right or the center, either) Voters of all sorts, including those on the left, just don't like it, and they will punish you given the opportunity. It is indeed small comfort that the mendacious hostage-takers who stopped us are now wildly unpopular both at home and around the country, but it is also a warning that we would have been in the same position if we had become the hostage takers ourselves.
Determining which members of Congress would have voted against the health care reform bill if the Stupak amendment had not been included is actually pretty easy:
House Whip James Clyburn said that the Stupak amendment netted ten votes:
"It was not 40 votes that we were trying to get with this amendment it was 10 votes. And that's the fact," Clyburn said on MSNBC. "This language took us across the threshold of 218, but it was 10 people. It wasn't 40 people as has been reported."
On July 1st, 26 House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi threatening to vote against the final bill unless the Stupak amendment was included. Of those 26, nine ended up voting for the bill:
Republican Joseph Cao also indicated he would have voted against the bill if not for the Stupak amendment.
Viola. Clyburn's ten votes are pretty easy to find.
There were 220 votes for health care reform in the House, and 218 will be required for passage on the conference report. So, in order to pass health care reform in the House without the Stupak amendment language, Democrats will need to replace as many as eight of these ten votes.
The best place to find those eight new votes would be from the 16 members of the House who voted against both the Stupak amendment and the final bill. These members thus opposed the bill for reasons that had nothing to do with the Stupak amendment:
It's a motley group that includes both conservatives from ultra-red districts (like Edwards and Minnick) and Progressives who ostensibly voted against the bill as the remnants of the Progressive Block (Kucinich and Massa). Perhaps the most notable feature of this group is that ten out of the sixteen members are in their first-term, compared to only two out of ten in the group that voted for the bill only because of the Stupak language.
These are the lists we have to work with to pass a health care bill without Stupak language, and with a public option. Off-hand, the easiest eight might be Kaptur (Progressive), Murtha (leadership), Boyd (primary challenge), Kissell (threats from donors, doesn't raise money well), Kucinich (Progressive, often faces primary challenges), Massa (Progressive), Murphy (never actually had to win a primary, still might face one) and someone.
It is a small enough group, and features enough members of either blue or purple districts, that primary challenges could potentially do the trick. I am not actually in favor of running primary challenges against people who voted against the health care bill, voted against Stupak, and co-sponsored Medicare for All, but there still should be enough blue and purple districts to get this done either way.
It can now be safely sated that the Senate will not pass the Stupak amendment.
Because 60 votes are required to attach an amendment to a bill in the Senate, there is no chance that the Senate will include the Stupak amendment in the health care bill it sends to conference committee. And, there simply are not 60 votes in favor the amendment in the Senate:
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that 60 votes would be needed to strip the current health care bill of its abortion-related language and replace it with a version resembling that passed by the House of Representatives on Saturday. And, in an interview with the Huffington Post, the California Democrat predicted that pro-choice forces in the Senate would keep that from happening.
"If someone wants to offer this very radical amendment, which would really tear apart [a decades-long] compromise, then I think at that point they would need to have 60 votes to do it," Boxer said. "And I believe in our Senate we can hold it."
"It is a much more pro-choice Senate than it has been in a long time," she added. "And it is much more pro-choice than the House."
While it is not clear that the Senate is more pro-choice than the House, even the House did not have 60% in favor of the Stupak amendment. On Saturday, 240, or 55.2%, of House members voted for the Stupak amendment.
This is a rare situation in 2009 where the 60-vote culture of the Senate actually works in favor of progressives. It is much harder to add an amendment in the Senate than in the House.
Even in the event that the Senate pursues reconciliation for a health care bill, where only a simple majority of Senators would be required, the Stupak amendment could not be included:
By the same token, the Stupak amendment would definitely run afoul of the Byrd rule. This rule dealing with abortion is clearly an "extraneous matter" and the Parliamentarian would rule is as such. It violates the first part of the Byrd rule because it does "not produce a change in outlays or revenues." I see almost no way the Stupak amendment could remain in a bill passed using reconciliation.
It isn't even clear that there are a majority of Senators in favor of the Stupak amendment. For example, the regressive Senate Finance committee already rejected Stupak-type language by majority vote:
On a 13-10 vote, the Senate Finance Committee rejected amendments from Sen. Orrin Hatch that would have the bill conform to current federal law prohibiting direct abortion funding.
Hatch amendment 355 would make it so the Baucus bill "prohibits authorized or appropriated federal funds under this Mark from being used for elective abortions and plans that cover such abortions."
The otherwise party-line vote saw pro-abortion Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe side with Democrats against it and Sen. Kent Conrad of Noth Dakota join Republicans in supporting it.
There are a few anti-choice Democrats in the Senate: Casey (PA), Conrad (ND), Nelson (NE), Reid (NV) and possibly a few more. However, there are not enough to pass the Stupak amendment in the Senate. It is a dead letter in that chamber.
The battle over the Stupak amendment will take place in the conference committee. Supposedly, the White House is in favor of removing the Stupak amendment. Also, supposedly there are enough House Democrats to kill the overall health care bill if the Stupak amendment is not removed. Further, Stupak himself has claimed that there are enough votes to pass the health care bill in the House without the Stupak amendment. Right now, it certainly seems as though the tide is turning against Stupak, and his chances of victory before the end are less than 50%.
