Conservatives are not laughing at “Doonesbury” comic strips this week.
The often-controversial strip by Garry Trudeau waded deep into the heart of the Texas abortion sonogram debate, with a week-long series focusing on a woman who enters a Texas abortion clinic and deals with a succession of bumbling pro-lifers. Some papers are not carrying this week’s strips.
The foil in Tuesday’s comic, for example, is a Texas legislator named Rep. Sid Patrick — an obvious reference to Texas Rep. Sid Miller and state Sen. Dan Patrick, the sponsors of the abortion sonogram bill.
In the strip, Patrick asks the woman if her “parents know she’s a slut” after she says she uses contraceptives.
"My skin is pretty thick, I'm disappointed at some of the papers for printing it inside the comic book pages," Miller told the News late Tuesday. "I don't see anything funny about it, the one yesterday or today, but I respect the right of Mr. Trudeau to give his opininon even if don't necessarily agree with it."
“Abortion remains a deeply contentious subject,” Trudeau told the AP. “Having said that, the goal is definitely not to antagonize editors and get booted from papers. It’s just an occupational risk.”
The comic strip’s distributer, Universal UClick Syndicate, offered its 1,400 newspaper subscribers the option of an alternate “Doonesbury” instead of the abortion-themed ones. "Doonesbury" apears in the print edition of The Daily News, but has never appeared on the web site because of rights issues.
“We have heard from 40 to 50 papers to ask for substitutes,” says Susan Rouch, the syndicate’s editor.
Other newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, decided to move the strip out of the comics pages and onto the Op-Ed pages.
"The kids reading 'Peanuts' or 'Nancy,' I don't think they're going to get much benefit out of read it," says Miller.
A number of newspapers, like the Oregonian, the Forth Worth Star Telegram and The Press of Atlantic City, decided to strip out the week’s “Doonesburys” entirely.
“In next week’s strip, ‘Doonesbury’ author Garry Trudeau, in our judgment, went over the line of good taste and humor in penning a series on abortion using graphic language and images inappropriate for a comics page,” the Oregonian editors wrote in a letter to readers.
Trudeau told Reuters that he was inspired by the “appalling” bills in Texas and Virginia that call for women to view an ultrasound of their unborn child before undergoing an abortion.
Not surprisingly, reaction to the “Doonesbury” story line pretty much fell along partisan lines. For instance, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow called newspapers that pulled the comics “cowardly.”
On the other side of the debate, “The decision to end a life isn’t funny,” Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s press secretary, Catherine Frazier, told the Dallas Morning News. “There is nothing comic about this tasteless interpretation of legislation we have passed in Texas to ensure that women have all the facts when making a life-ending decision.”
After nearly derailing the health care bill that passed the House on Sunday, the abortion issue is poised to make a political comeback, returning the familiar wedge issue to the campaign trail after a brief hiatus.
Both abortion-rights and anti-abortion groups say the experience of health care reform has served as a reminder of the stark consequences of elections — and of the need to elect reliable allies who will work hard to advance and defend their agendas.
The Family Research Council, which has already spent nearly $2 million this cycle backing anti-abortion candidates across the country, is now considering wading into battles against anti-abortion Democrats like Pennsylvania Rep. Kathleen Dahlkemper, Virginia Rep. Thomas Perriello, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth and West Virginia Reps. Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall — all of whom voted for the health care bill Sunday.
“Because of what pro-lifers see as betrayal, it’s personal now,” said Tom McClusky, vice president of governmental affairs for the Family Research Council. “There’s passion, but we want to make sure that passion is directed in the right place.”
NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan told POLITICO that the lesson learned from the health care battle was that the abortion-rights movement, which has lacked the votes needed to shut down abortion funding language from anti-abortion Democrats throughout the health care reform push, needs more allies in Congress.
“From our point of view, we are concentrated on changing those numbers,” said Keenan. “We absolutely will be taking a look at those anti-abortion lawmakers, and if we can, we will take a run at them.”
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), an abortion opponent who led the fight for restrictions on federal funding of abortion until cutting a deal with the White House that cleared the way for final passage on the bill Sunday, may find himself at the center of the storm.
In the hours after Stupak announced his compromise, the nine-term Michigan Democrat came under fierce attack from both sides of the abortion debate, including onetime ally Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group which stripped Stupak of its “Defender of Life” award.
“Stupak has not only failed to stand strong for unborn children but also for his constituents and pro-life voters across the country,” SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement.
Abortion-rights organizations, meanwhile, accused Democrats of advancing language restricting abortion rights in the health care legislation.
“On a day when Americans are expected to see passage of legislation that will make health care more affordable for more than 30 million citizens, it is deeply disappointing that Bart Stupak and other anti-choice politicians would demand the restatement of the Hyde Amendment, a discriminatory law that blocks low-income women from receiving full reproductive health care,” Keenan said in a statement.
Already, Stupak’s Upper Peninsula district is witnessing a surge in election activity linked to Stupak’s role in the health care debate. The National Organization for Women and MI List, a Michigan-based group that aims to elect women who support abortion rights, have weighed in for former Charlevoix County Commissioner Connie Saltonstall, who recently announced her Democratic primary challenge to Stupak.
Keenan hinted that NARAL would be announcing its plans for participating in the race in the days ahead.
“I have gotten support from people all over the country,” Saltonstall told POLITICO on Monday, noting that she had raised $75,000 since entering the race earlier this month. “It’s been phenomenal the response we’ve gotten.”
On the Republican side, Dan Benishek, a Republican surgeon who is running against Stupak, saw a wave of interest in his candidacy after Sunday’s vote. Once considered a long-shot candidate, Benishek was scheduled for an appearance on conservative talk radio host Mark Levin’s show Monday.
The Family Research Council’s McClusky said there was little question that his organization would wade into the Stupak race.
“His actions hit the hardest,” said McClusky. “It’s time for him to leave Congress.”
In a brief interview prior to the vote Sunday, Stupak acknowledged that he and other anti-abortion Democrats had become a target from both sides of the debate.
“I’m sure pro-life organizations are not happy,” said Stupak. “Will they give us grief? Yeah. Yeah. We stood on principle.”
In the run-up to Sunday’s vote, both sides of the abortion fight sought to frame their positions in terms of popular support. SBA List held a conference call with reporters to unveil polling the organization conducted in a slew of districts held by anti-abortion House Democrats, while NARAL unveiled a five-page polling memo detailing voter support for abortion.
“Pro-choice Democratic women led the fight against the anti-choice forces led by Bart Stupak. One thing was made incredibly clear, and that is with more pro-choice Democratic women in Congress, the way this debate unfolded could have been remarkably different."
EMILY’s List President Stephanie Schriock said in an e-mail. “As we celebrate all the benefits included in the bill for American women and families, EMILY’s List is more determined than ever to elect women who will fight to protect women, their health and reproductive freedom.”
Veteran Michigan Rep. Dale Kildee said he was confident fellow anti-abortion Democrats would weather the storm from outside groups.
“They’ll probably get some grief, but I think they’ll be able to override it,” Kildee told POLITICO outside the House chamber Sunday evening. “You face it every year. They want total purity. But they’ll be able to handle that.”
Republicans have also signaled they’ll wage an aggressive fight over the divisive issue, with the National Republican Congressional Committee slamming Democrats in conservative seats for voting for a bill that they charged would weaken restrictions on abortion.
“Chris Carney, Not a Pro-Life Democrat Anymore,” read one NRCC press release Sunday, referring to the Pennsylvania congressman who signed on to the Stupak compromise.
And as they waged a last-ditch effort to derail the health care bill Sunday, Republicans sought to duplicate Stupak’s efforts last fall — when he was considered a strong anti-abortion ally — to strengthen the provisions restricting abortion funding in the bill.
Stupak stood before the House and bluntly accused Republicans of playing politics with abortion.
“For the Republicans now to claim that we send the bill back to committee under this guise of protecting life is disingenuous,” said Stupak. “This motion is really to politicize life, not prioritize life. We stand for the American people. We stand up for life.”
Pro-Choice and Pro-Life groups on Sunday strongly denounced a deal by Pro-Life Democrats and President Obama to ensure limits on taxpayer money for abortion services, outlined in a Senate health insurance overhaul now on the verge House approval.
Abortion Rights supporters chastised the president, saying he caved on his principles by agreeing to issue an executive order that strengthens limits on abortion. Abortion opponents, on the other hand, said Obama's pending order does nothing to prohibit spending on abortion services as provided in the Senate bill.
The National Organization for Women issued a statement that it is "incensed" Obama agreed to the deal sought by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and other lawmakers who argued that the Senate health care overhaul allowed public funding for abortions. The lawmakers had been the key votes to stopping passage of the massive government plan.
"Through this order, the President has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the Anti-Abortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass," reads a statement from NOW.
"President Obama campaigned as a Pro-Choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best. ... We see now that we have our work cut out for us far beyond what we ever anticipated. The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of Women, and we couldn't disagree more," the group said.
"The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says," the group said.
Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser said the group was revoking its "Defender of Life" award to Stupak, which was to be awarded at its Wednesday night gala.
"We were planning to honor Congressman Stupak for his efforts to keep abortion-funding out of health care reform. We will no longer be doing so," Dannenfelser said. "Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this health care bill can no longer call themselves 'pro-life.'"
Stupak, who led Democratic lawmakers opposed to the Senate bill, made an announcement of a deal Sunday afternoon, surrounded by a handful of Democratic lawmakers who had held out their "yes" votes in exchange for a guarantee of no public funding for abortion.
The arrangement appeared to cement passage of the massive insurance overhaul as House lawmakers later approved the rules for debate in a 224-206 vote, moving the House one step closer to passage.
"I'm pleased to announce that we have an agreement, and it's with the help of the president and the speaker we were able to come to an agreement to protect the sanctity of life in the health care reform. There will be no public funding for abortion in this legislation," Stupak said.
The White House issued its own statement about the executive order.
The president "will be issuing an executive order after the passage of the health insurance reform law that will reaffirm its consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion," reads the statement from White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer.
"While the legislation as written maintains current law, the executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation's restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented," the statement reads.
Opponents say an executive order does not have the force of law that legislation would provide.
"That is not the rule of law. That's the rule of man. One man can sign an executive order and one man can repeal that again, the president of the United States," said Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., appearing on "Fox News Sunday" before the deal was announced.
House Minority Leader John Boehner said an executive order "can direct members of the executive branch, it cannot direct the private sector."
"Because of Roe v. Wade, courts have interpreted the decision as a statutory mandate that the government must provide federal funding for elective abortion in through federal programs. In other words, no executive order or regulation can override a statutory mandate unless Congress passes a law that prohibits federal funding from being used in this manner," Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement.
Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., added that pro-life Democrats should be alarmed by a promise coming from a politician with a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
"This puts the fate of the unborn in the hands of the most pro-abortion president in history," he said.
Stupak had frustrated Democratic liberals who said they were fine with the language in the Senate health care that stipulated taxpayer money for abortions not be used by private insurance plans operating in a new insurance marketplace.
Opponents of the Senate bill, however, had wanted more rigorous language like that which had passed the House in November under the "Stupak amendment." Stupak said statutory language would've been preferable but would not pass the Senate.
Stupak's concerns seemed to have been allayed by the executive order even though the Senate bill creates a tricky accounting technique to separate out federal subsidies for premiums on plans that allow abortion coverage and those that do not.
Planned Parenthood argued that while it opposed the president's decision to issue an order, the abortion service provider was glad the president didn't order a ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion, as it claimed Stupak's amendment would've done.
"We regret that a pro-choice president of a pro-choice nation was forced to sign an executive order that further codifies the proposed anti-choice language in the health care reform bill," the group said in a statement. "We are grateful that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban."
Health insurance provided by government-run exchanges is not set to go into effect until 2014, after the 2012 election. Stupak said he was confident the executive order would not be rescinded by Obama.
The president "said there will be no federal dollars for abortion. The president has put his commitment in writing," Stupak said. "This is a very extensive order, he does not plan on rescinding it."
The White House and anti-abortion Democrats have reached an agreement to defuse the controversy over abortion in the health reform bill — planning a series of steps that will secure the support of Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak and other Democrats to give party leaders the votes they need to pass reform, sources tell POLITICO.
Under the agreement, President Barack Obama would sign an executive order ensuring that no federal funding will go to pay for abortion under the health reform plans. In addition, Stupak will get to state his concerns about abortion funding in the bill during a colloquy on the House floor during the debate.
And then, Stupak and several other Democratic holdouts over abortion will sign on to the bill, the sources said. The agreement would almost certainly give House Speaker Nancy Pelosi the 216 votes she needs to secure an historic health reform vote by day’s end — capping a yearlong drive to achieve Obama’s signature legislative goal.
Stupak himself told reporters in the Capitol that he remains opposed to the bill at this time. "I'm a 'no' vote. There is no agreement. Until there is an agreement I'm a 'no' vote," Stupak said, but he said the negotiations on a final agreement are continuing.
Asked how many votes hang in the balance, Stupak said, “enough” — meaning enough to save or kill the bill.
But Rep. Alan Mollohan, who is one of the votes in question, told POLITICO that the language in the agreement has already been essentially cleared. Mollohan said it is only a matter of time for "the follow-through steps" to be implemented.
The small cavalcade of victories for Democratic leaders appeared to put them in position to enact the health care law while allowing more politically vulnerable lawmakers off the hook.
Earlier Sunday, Democratic leaders expressed growing confidence that they would have the votes needed to pass a sweeping health reform measure by day’s end — even as the No. 2 House leader acknowledged Democrats are still a few votes shy of a majority.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Democrats are “low single digits” away from getting the 216 votes needed to pass the bill.
“We're going to get the votes, low single digits certainly, but we're going to get the votes, and we’re going to have the votes this afternoon,” Hoyer (Md.) said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” "There are still members looking at it, trying to make up their minds [but], we think 216-plus votes when we call the roll."
But Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) insisted the Democrats were already there, saying Sunday would be an historic day, and said: “We have the votes now, as we speak,” he said.
Democrats hope to secure the votes of a trio of veteran Blue Dogs — Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California and retiring Reps. Marion Berry (Ark.) and John Tanner (Tenn.) — as well as a handful of anti-abortion Democrats who could break from Stupak to back the bill.
Already, Stupak’s phalanx of Anti-Abortion hard-liners has been breaking apart, with Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur announcing Sunday that she will support the health care bill. Retiring Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who had concerns about the bill not related to abortion, also announced Sunday that he will vote for the bill.
A round of late-night negotiations held the promise of further cracking Stupak's coalition with a proposed executive order that would reinforce the bill's ban on federal subsidies for the purchase of insurance plans that cover abortion.
The talks, led by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), were expected to continue deep into the night after a rare and wild Saturday House session that featured a visit from Obama to a Democratic Caucus meeting and a frenzied tea party-style protest against the bill and Democratic leaders on the Capitol grounds.
"It is time to pass health care reform for America, and I am confident that you are going to do it tomorrow," Obama said in an address broadcast nationwide from deep inside the underground Capitol Visitor Center. "Don't do it for me. Don't do it for Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid . Do it for the American people. They're the ones looking for action right now."
Pass or fail, Sunday's votes will be the culmination of a tortuous yearlong legislative saga. Democrats believe they will deliver on a decades-overdue promise, and Republicans believe Democrats are setting themselves up for a rout come November. At this point, Louisiana Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao is the only Republican who could back the bill — and, though he voted for the initial House bill, that seems like a long shot.
At the same time Obama spoke, several stories above the caucus bunker, thousands of protesters massed at the southeastern edge of the Capitol grounds. Several Republican lawmakers, led by Rep. Steve King of Iowa, used a bullhorn to whip up the crowd in opposition to the health care bill and the Democratic leaders who are pursuing its enactment. They derisively chanted Pelosi's first name, yelling "Nan-cy, Nan-cy, Nan-cy" in unison, as if attending a New York Mets game.
Despite the protesters, Obama's Saturday afternoon pep talk came amid good news for Democratic vote-counters, who predicted they would get the 216 votes needed to send the bulk of the health care overhaul to the president on Sunday.
In addition to expanding health insurance access to nearly every American, the measure would end insurers' ability to deny coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions. Democrats, backed by a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, say their combined bills will also produce a surplus of $138 billion over the next decade and $1.2 trillion over the following 10 years.
In the final push to clear the underbrush for Sunday's votes, Democratic leaders killed a controversial plan to avoid a direct vote on the Senate's bill, opting instead to vote separately on both that bill and the House's fixes.
Sources: Fox News, MSNBC, National Right to Life Committee, National Women's Organization, TIME, Simon & Schuster, Youtube
30 million people without health insurance stand to gain coverage under a deal announced on Saturday by Senate Democrats.
To get the 60 votes needed to pass their bill, Democrats scrapped the idea of a government-run public insurance plan, cherished by liberals, and replaced it with a proposal for nationwide health plans, which would be offered by private insurers under contract with the government.
The legislation also includes a proposal that would limit insurance coverage of abortion. The provision, which was the last piece of the puzzle to fall into place, was negotiated by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, to win the support of Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, who is an opponent of abortion.
Under the agreement, states could choose to prohibit abortion coverage in the insurance markets, or exchanges, where most health plans would be sold.
But if a health plan did cover the procedure, subscribers would have to make two separate monthly premium payments: one for all insurance coverage except abortion and one for abortion coverage.
The compromise was denounced by advocates of abortion rights, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Organization for Women, Naral Pro-Choice America and the National Women’s Law Center.
“We have no choice but to oppose the Senate bill,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Right to Life Committee reached a similar conclusion for very different reasons.
“This bill should not be supported in its current form because it would allow federal money to go to health insurance plans that cover elective abortions,” said Richard M. Doerflinger, a spokesman on abortion for the bishops’ conference.
The final deal was packed with provisions calculated to appeal to various constituencies. The bill would provide extra Medicaid money to Nebraska, long-term-care insurance to people with severe disabilities, new services for pregnant teenagers and financial breaks to nonprofit insurance companies.
But there were also potential losers. To bring in more revenue, the bill proposes a range of new fees and taxes that would affect some high-income people, profitable health insurance companies and people who use tanning salons.
The proposals were drafted by Mr. Reid as part of an amendment to a sweeping health care bill, which embodies President Obama’s top domestic priority.
Mr. Reid’s amendment would expand eligibility for a small-business tax credit, increase penalties on certain uninsured people and increase the payroll tax on higher-income individuals and families beyond the increase that Mr. Reid proposed last month.
Mr. Nelson — whose home state of Nebraska received the additional Medicaid money — embraced the bill on Saturday.
“A number of states are treated differently from other states,” Mr. Reid said. “That’s what this legislation is all about, compromise.”
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the bill was “a monstrosity full of special sweetheart deals for a few states,” including Nebraska and Vermont.
Under Mr. Reid’s amendment, the federal Office of Personnel Management, which provides health benefits to federal employees, would sign contracts with insurers to offer at least two national health plans to individuals, families and small businesses. At least one contract would have to be with a nonprofit entity.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies could offer a single national plan. The new national plans would be separate from the program for federal employees, and premiums would be calculated separately.
Under the bill, most Americans would be required to have insurance. The penalty for violating this requirement could be as high as 2 percent of a taxpayer’s household income. Penalties would total $15 billion over 10 years, up from $8 billion under Mr. Reid’s original proposal, the Congressional Budget Office said.
In the next 10 years, the government would also collect $28 billion in penalties from employers who did not offer health benefits to employees.
Mr. Reid dropped a proposed tax on cosmetic surgery and replaced it with a tax on “indoor tanning services.” Senate Democrats said the 10 percent tax was justified because ultraviolet radiation from tanning devices could increase the risk of skin cancer.
The bill would significantly increase the Medicare payroll tax on people with high incomes. Workers now pay a tax equal to 1.45 percent of wages to help finance hospital care for Medicare beneficiaries.
Mr. Reid’s proposal would impose an additional tax: 0.9 percent of income above $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families. This is nearly twice the extra tax of 0.5 percent that he proposed last month.
To help finance coverage of the uninsured, the bill would levy annual fees on insurance companies and manufacturers of medical devices and prescription drugs. Under the proposal unveiled on Saturday, nonprofit insurance companies could be exempted if they spent a large share of their premiums on medical care rather than administrative costs.
Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, had sought such an exemption to spare companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, which he said provided a valuable service as the “insurer of last resort.”
The biggest source of revenue under the bill is a new tax on employer-sponsored group health plans with high premiums. The bill provides a special dispensation to police officers, firefighters, miners and construction workers, who have high premiums because they work in high-risk occupations.
Mr. Reid would grant a similar dispensation to longshoremen.
In what they described as an effort to reduce the demand for abortion, Democrats would provide money to help pregnant teenagers and new mothers so that they could stay in high school and attend college.
The federal government would provide $25 million a year for a “pregnancy assistance fund.” The money could be used for “maternity and baby clothing, baby food, baby furniture and similar items,” the proposal says.
Children could benefit from Mr. Reid’s proposal in two other ways. He would immediately prohibit insurers from denying coverage to children because of pre-existing medical conditions. And he would provide money to extend the Children’s Health Insurance Program for two more years, through 2015, as proposed by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia.
Think Progess has documented how the private health insurance industry is waging a duplicitous, “two-faced” campaign to kill health reform. Because the industry understands that the public views it in a largely negative light, the industry presents itself as proactively working hand-in-hand with legislators to produce reform. However, behind the scenes, the industry is coordinating a massive effort to kill all reform — employing attacks from front groups, allied politicians, think tanks, lobbyists, and right-wing media.
The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, which is a lobbying group representing 39 independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans, is also engaged in this two-faced campaign. Like most of industry, the BCBS Association says it fully supports the concept of health reform, but continually demands drastic changes to the bills in Congress. Some have begun to question the BCBS Association’s claim of support given its new study attacking reform legislation in the Senate. The criticism of BCBS is bolstered by a new revelation that BCBS Association lobbyists are helping to orchestrate a right-wing movement to invalidate all of health reform.
Yesterday, the BCBS Association released yet another industry-sponsored study to distort health reform and falsely claim that premiums will skyrocket because of the legislation. However, the nonpartisan CBO reported earlier this week that under the Senate health reform bill, “most Americans would pay the same or less in premiums.” A New York Times editorial yesterday criticized BCBS Association’s study, and noted correctly that it is yet another example of the private insurance industry doing whatever it can to frighten Americans.
But while the study certainly damages BCBS’ credibility, BCBS is involved in another anti-health reform ploy that they do not bother to promote on the BCBS website. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), founded in 1973 by conservative activist Paul Weyrich, is a DC-based front group which helps state lawmakers craft corporate-friendly legislation. As the Atlantic has noted, ALEC developed template health care “states’ rights,” legislation to declare aspects of health reform unconstitutional. ALEC has promoted this “tenther” legislation using its network of mostly far right Republican state lawmakers. The bills, which have been adopted in some form in 24 states so far, aim to invalidate federal regulations of health insurance, the public option and the individual mandate using the Tenther Amendment.
According to the ALEC website, the resolution was developed by a three member task force of industry representatives. One of the of the members is Joan Gardner, who is executive director of state services with the BCBS Association’s Office of Policy and Representation. In an interview with ThinkProgress, Christie Herrera, the director of ALEC’s health task force, confirmed that Gardner played a pivotal role in crafting this anti-health reform states’ rights initiative. Herrera told us that Gardner’s unique position at the BCBS Association brought “great knowledge” to the issue, and that Gardner voted to press forward with the campaign.
Part of the reason the BCBS Association has claimed that it opposes the reform bill in its current form is because of what it perceives as a weak individual mandate. However, the BCBS Association-supported ALEC campaign depicts the very notion of an individual mandate as “anti-freedom.” So either way the Senate acts, BCBS will be able to trash the bill and try to kill reform.
Private insurers have already been caught using a stealth lobbying firm to send employees to rowdy town halls (and radical tea party events), sharing lobbyists with slash-and-burn anti-health reform attack groups, and paying a number of conservative pundits who regularly appear in major media outlets to slam health reform. Now that it is clear that BCBS helped write the script for the radical tenther movement, any claim that the industry supports reform must be viewed with heightened skepticism.
Public option and abortion loom for health care reform. A compromise is being considered on the public option and a vote expected on the Sen. Ben Nelson’s abortion amendment. Politico’s Jim Vandehei discusses.
The fate and shape of the public option in the Senate health care bill now rests in the hands of ten Democratic senators: five moderates and five progressives whose views span the spectrum within the Democratic caucus. The group had several closed door sessions over the weekend, but most of its members have been uncharacteristically tight-lipped on their negotiations.
"I'm not going to get into any details of any type," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., following a meeting Sunday night. "Nobody in that room, neither me nor any of the others have signed off on anything."
Majority Leader Harry Reid said he tasked the group "to work things out" on the public option and other issues. The moderates are: Sens. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., Mary Landrieu, D-La., Ben Nelson, D-Neb., Tom Carper, D-Del., and Mark Pryor, D-Ark. The liberals are Schumer, Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Russ Feingold, D-Wisc.
"We have had a really intense three hours of discussion and we are not there yet by any stretch of the imagination," Schumer told reporters, "but we're finding a good deal of give and take that leads to common ground."
Nelson said trying to find that "common ground" on a public option fix was proving to be "a very difficult challenge."
"There are some [in the group] who truly believe that you need a robust public option," he said. "There are some who would favor single-payer. And it extends, perhaps to me, who thinks it should be done at the state level."
"That's a pretty wide gap to try to bridge," he added.
The group of ten lawmakers is expected to meet for another round of negotiations Monday.
President Barack Obama addressed the full Senate Democratic caucus in a closed meeting on Capitol Hill, just a few hours before the group of 10 negotiators began their meeting.
But, according to one senator, the president did not even utter the words 'public option' or address the rift it has spurred within his party.
Adding more pressure on the group of progressive and moderates is Majority Leader Reid's self imposed deadline of finishing the bill this year.
Later this week, Reid is likely to take the first of three procedural steps to bring the bill to final passage, according to a Democratic leadership aide. Those steps will require Reid to muster 60 votes to break filibusters that target various parts of the bill and could take at least nine days to complete.
Beyond the procedural hurdles and the public option feud, Reid may still have other 60 vote thresholds to cross. "Even if we came to total terms on [the public option], I still have some other concerns that have to be dealt with as well," Nelson said.
An amendment offered by Nelson and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch placing tighter restrictions on federal funds being used on abortion could get a vote as early as Monday.
In an illustration of how sensitive the public option talks are within the new Group of Ten, when Landrieu emerged from the Sunday night meeting and began talking to reporters, Schumer followed behind her with a loud reminder.
"I wouldn't say we're close [to a deal]" Landrieu started to tell reporters who swarmed her.
But Schumer quickly told her and other group members within earshot, "The one thing I forgot to say is we're not going to say much to the press."
Anti-abortion lawmakers in the Senate plan to introduce an amendment as soon as Monday to restrict insurance coverage of abortion in the health bill, setting up a showdown that has no clear path to resolution.
Both sides agree the amendment likely doesn't have enough votes to pass, but antiabortion groups and Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) say they will continue insisting on tough language as a condition for supporting the overall bill.
The lack of a clear meeting point makes abortion somewhat different from the other top obstacle to the bill's passage, the publicly run insurance plan that some Democrats oppose. There, both sides are weighing a handful of compromises.
On abortion, said Sen. Nelson, "it's certainly not a lock that there's language in the middle."
As it stands now, the Senate health bill would include abortion coverage in the new public plan and would allow women who receive government tax credits for insurance to enroll in a plan that covers the procedure. The tax credit would be segregated so none of it could go toward funding abortion.
Antiabortion advocates say that's too lenient and want to prevent any insurance plan that receives federal funding from covering the procedure, except in the case of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother
Sen. Nelson plans to introduce an amendment that mirrors the tighter funding restrictions the House added to its health bill, based on a proposal by Rep. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). The measure would prevent the public insurance plan from covering abortion. It would also prohibit any woman who got the tax credit from enrolling in a plan that covers the procedure.
Sen. Nelson has said he won't vote for a bill that doesn't include these restrictions. With no signs the measure will pass, Sen. Nelson said Friday that "we're going to keep talking" to reach a compromise on the issue. But his antiabortion allies say they won't accept anything less than the Stupak language.
"That's not a negotiation we're prepared to have," said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the secretariat of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which pushed for the abortion restrictions in the House bill. "I really don't know how you compromise further."
Abortion-rights advocates are taking a similarly rigid line, saying that such a change would represent the biggest setback for them in decades. "As far as I'm concerned, this bill is a compromise," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which supports the bill in its current form. "People are really ready to move on on this issue and not have a protracted debate about legal abortion in this country."
Both sides see the Senate bill as a turning point in the abortion debate and are making a big push to rally supporters. Abortion-rights advocates brought hundreds of supporters to the Capitol last week to meet lawmakers and have been running television advertisements calling the amendment an attempt to roll back women's rights. The Catholic bishops on Friday sent an alert to parishes urging their members to contact their lawmakers in support of Sen. Nelson's amendment, and plan to oppose the bill if they don't win the change.
The abortion fight could prove decisive as Democratic leaders seek to build the 60-vote majority needed to ensure passage of the broader legislation. If Sen. Nelson ultimately decides to oppose the legislation, Democratic leaders will have to look for support across the aisle from Maine's two Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of whom are supportive of abortion rights. If that happens, the Maine contingent would have big leverage to dictate further changes to the bill, especially on the issue of the government-run insurance plan.
Some senators say they regret that abortion has taken on outsize importance in the health bill, which is designed to expand insurance to tens of millions of Americans and slow the growth of health costs. "It is a shock to all of us...that this has come down to an abortion issue," Sen. Patty Murray (D., Wash.) said last week.
Sources: Wall Street Journal, The Daily Beast, Politico
In the past week, abortion has flared up as a major impediment to passage of a health care reform bill in the Senate, taking a similar path as it did during the House debate — from obscurity to obstacle in a matter of days.
After months of trying to craft a 60-vote coalition based on the finer points of health care policy, Senate Democrats are growing increasingly worried that abortion will upend what had become a clear path to approving the overhaul bill.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) sparked a fresh round of concern this week when he repeatedly and definitively vowed to filibuster the health care legislation unless it included abortion restrictions as tough as the so-called Stupak amendment in the House bill.
“I don’t ordinarily draw a line in the sand, but I have drawn a line in the sand,” Nelson said Friday.
Nelson certainly has a long history of agitating his party by withholding his vote until he wrings out every last concession from Senate leaders. But on the uncompromising issue of abortion, Democrats fear he may really be serious this time.
“There is a worry that Sen. Nelson means business,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategy. “Unlike with public option, there is very little ground liberal Democrats are willing to give on this issue. Abortion, not the public option, may be the cause of our first official defection.”
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which proved highly influential in the House health care debate, is assisting Nelson and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in drafting an anti-abortion amendment, and its representatives are meeting with senators, including Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.).
The bishops have also sent a nationwide bulletin insert to its parishes for Sunday Mass, according to a source familiar with the plans. The conference rallied parishioners in a similar way ahead of the House vote. The bishops conference didn’t return calls seeking comment.
Advocacy groups on both sides of the issue are using the weekend to mobilize supporters ahead of a debate that could begin as early as Monday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) had expected to dispense with the abortion amendments by the weekend, but Nelson sought more time.
“Delay is always good,” said Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, a group that opposes abortion.
For months, Senate Democrats have been gaming out various paths to 60 votes on the other major intractable problem — a government insurance plan. They continue to struggle with a solution, but there is a growing sense a compromise can ultimately be forged and it would not be the reason the bill fails.
“On abortion, nobody is in a mood to deal at all,” the aide said.
The abortion debate that unfolded in the House caught abortion rights supporters off guard, and they have been as unbending as abortion opponents on the Stupak amendment, which prohibits individuals from using federal subsidies to buy policies that cover abortion. Abortion rights supporters say the language could force insurers from offering abortion coverage in any of their plans, potentially limiting access to the procedure for millions of women.
“We are going to defeat it,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) of Nelson’s amendment, which is expected to closely mirror the Stupak language.
Asked if he believed abortion could derail the health care bill, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) didn’t hesitate: “Yes, absolutely.”
“Clearly, this is one of the major challenges facing this bill,” said Conrad, who votes with abortion opponents. “The settled policy of the government is that there is not taxpayer funding of abortion, and we are trying to continue that policy. It is very complicated in the context of an exchange and a public option to continue the Hyde amendment policy that has long been in place. Lots of smart people working on ways to try to be able to ensure people that is the case, on both sides. We have not reached a conclusion.”
Reid plans to schedule several votes on the issue to “demonstrate that the 60 votes are not there,” a Senate Democratic leadership aide said.
If Nelson’s amendment fails, which is expected, the question at that point is what would he do — and how does Reid get to 60 votes on the overall bill without him?
Nelson told POLITICO this week that he would not walk away from the negotiations if the Senate rejects his amendment. “No, no, no. I’m a facilitator,” he said. “If this bill is going to pass without me, I still want it to be the best bill.”
Reid could attempt to reach a compromise that forces both sides to give up something, and include the new language in a “manager’s amendment” that goes up for a vote right before debate ends on the bill.
Or else, the majority leader may need to go aggressively after one or both of the Maine Republicans, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, who support abortion rights. That could mean major concessions on the public option, taxes and the mandate on individuals to purchase insurance — aspects of the Democratic bill that they oppose.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he expected Democrats to find a compromise that brings Nelson along.
“At the end of the day, we need Sen. Nelson’s vote. We still don’t have a promise of a vote from the Republican side, and so we would need his vote to make our 60,” Durbin told reporters in a conference call Friday.
Durbin didn’t specify what kind of compromise would bring Nelson on board. He said the Senate will consider Nelson’s amendment when the Nebraska Democrat is ready to bring it to the floor, but leadership is encouraging him to go ahead without Hatch, who indicated he needed more time to review the amendment with outside groups.
Nelson, however, was quick to bat down any notion of a compromise.
“No,” Nelson said Friday, when asked if he would accept softer language. “I don’t want to start talking about compromises before I have an opportunity to offer something.”
During her recent interview with Superstar Oprah Winfrey, former GOP VP Candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin revealed her perspective on the issue of Abortion. Do I agree with her? Yes I do. At one time in my life I was a Single Mother also faced with the option of Abortion. Choosing to have my two sons years ago when faced with that decision, leaves me with no regrets today.
While delivering his last Health Care Reform speech before Congress on Sept. 9, 2009, Pres. Obama promised American Voters there would be No Federal Funding for Abortions included in the bill. Have Democrats forgotten this promise?
The author of a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion coverage on Tuesday predicted that health care reform legislation would stall if the White House tries to step in and strip it out.
Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., dismissed a claim by White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod that President Obama would intervene to change the language, saying Axelrod is clueless on the issue and that such an intervention would imperil the bill.
"They're not going to take it out. If they do, health care will not move forward," Stupak told Fox News. "We won fair and square. ... That's why Mr. Axelrod's not a legislator. He doesn't really know what he's talking about."
The abortion amendment was tacked on to the House health care bill and was a key factor in securing the votes of moderate Democrats before the bill was approved by a narrow margin earlier this month. The amendment went beyond preventing the proposed government-run plan from covering abortion to restricting federal subsidies from being used for private plans that offer abortion coverage.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday that the language "raised a comfort level with many members." The bill passed by a narrow margin even after the abortion language was added. Hoyer offered no predictions for its fate in the Senate and beyond.
"We'll have to see how that is handled in the Senate and then in the conference," Hoyer said.
The passage drew recriminations from abortion rights supporters like Planned Parenthood, which called on the White House and Democratic lawmakers to reverse the measure. Axelrod answered the call in an interview Sunday, saying the amendment changes the "status quo," something the president cannot abide.
"The president has said repeatedly, and he said in his speech to Congress, that he doesn't believe that this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion," Axelrod said. "This shouldn't be a debate about abortion. And he's going to work with Senate and the House to try and ensure that at the end of the day, the status quo is not changed ... I believe that there are discussions ongoing to how to adjust it accordingly."
Axelrod told CNN's "State of the Union" that the president believes that issue, as well as the ongoing dispute over what kind of government-run insurance plan, if any, should be included in the overhaul, "can and will be worked through before it reaches his desk."
The president also said last week that he did not support the amendment.
But Stupak said the bill would have a difficult time getting through the Senate without such restrictions, and said that if it bounces back to the House without the amendment, the administration could lose "at least 10 to 15 to 20" votes.
"The majority has spoken. Most people agree -- do not use public funds for abortion," he said. "You're not going to summarily start dismissing amendments which the majority of the House of Representatives wanted because some person, David Axelrod or someone, doesn't like it."
Sen. Claire McCaskill, a pro-choice Democrat from Missouri, said on Monday that she didn't think a provision greatly restricting the ability of woman to access or pay for abortions would be enough to kill a Senate health care bill
Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", McCaskill was asked whether an amendment added by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) to the House's legislation would be too bitter a pill to pass the Senate.
"I am not sure that it is," replied the Missouri Democrat. "Obviously, I have been a pro-choice candidate for my entire political career, and obviously there is controversy always surrounding this issue. But we are talking about whether or not people that get public money can buy an insurance policy that has a coverage for abortion. And that is not the majority of America. The majority of America is not going to be getting subsidies from the government...."
"And so, I am not sure that this is going to be enough to kill the bill," McCaskill added. "And frankly, once again, this is another example of having to govern with moderates. We can't just turn our back on the fact that the reason we are in majority, is because states like Indiana, and Arkansas, and Louisiana, and Missouri, and North Carolina, and Virginia sent Democrats to the Senate."
One of just 13 female Democrats in the Senate, McCaskill's willingness to support a Senate version of the Stupak amendment could go a long way to determining whether it is added to the final product. Already on Monday there is ample indication that it will be considered. Leadership aides, for one, are not tamping down reports that a handful of conservative Democrats are preparing to introduce legislation that would mirror Stupak's. As one noted, the two committees that produced health care legislation each considered amendments that either explicitly or practically achieved what Stupak's did. Finance had the Hatch Amendment that required women to buy supplemental abortion coverage while HELP had multiple amendments.
The language seems likely to be considered once again. As The New York Time's reported: "some Senate Democrats, including Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, are pushing to incorporate the same restrictions in their own bill. Senior Senate Democratic aides said the outcome was too close to call."
If, indeed, the Stupak language makes it into the Senate bill, it would be a major blow to pro-choice advocates. It would also seemingly ensure that the restrictions on abortion access would survive conference committee with the House and end up in the final piece of legislation. If that is the case it sets up a major showdown, once again, in the people's chamber. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), for one, has insisted she and 40 additional colleagues will oppose any final bill that includes the Stupak amendment.
"There's going to be a firestorm here," DeGette told The Washington Post. "Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
