Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Thursday afternoon that he’s negotiating with Democratic leaders to get a comprehensive health bill that doesn’t include any federal funding for abortion.
Stupak, who authored the anti-abortion language in the House health care bill, had come from what he described as “a great meeting” with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the chairman of the energy and commerce committee.
“We will continue to meet. I hope we can work it out,” he said at a news conference. “Once we see the language, maybe we can work it out with the language.”
He said there are “at least 12” House Democrats who voted for last year’s bill that will turn against the next iteration if it includes the Senate language on abortion.
Stupak also fired back at Speaker Nancy Pelosi, disputing her claims at a news conference three hours earlier that the Senate health bill won’t allow federal funding for abortion.
“She’s incorrect,” he said. “I’d ask the speaker to direct her attention to page 2069 through page 2078. There are two ways in those pages where you pay for abortion. Number one, you get tax breaks that subsidize your insurance policy that will pay for abortion. Number two, when you read the legislation, one dollar per month for all enrollees, must go into this fund for ‘reproductive care,’ which includes abortion coverage.”
Stupak rejected the notion that he’s holding up the legislation.
“Who injected abortion into health care? It wasn’t Bart Stupak. It was the (Rep. Lois) Capps (D-Calif.) amendment in the committee,” he said. “My amendment was in response to Capps. And in committee, we actually won the vote until they asked for a revote. And then we lost by one vote. So we’re dealt this hand, and we’ve said we’ll maintain current law: no public funding for abortion.”
Continuing a day that included an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on "Good Morning America,” he stressed that he’s willing to bring down the final bill if he doesn’t get his way.
“We will not compromise that principle or belief,” he said. “We’re just asking for the current law.”
When another reported asked if he felt bad about denying President Barack Obama a key legislative victory, Stupak said the president promised on Sept. 9 that there will be no federal funding for abortion.
“I’m helping out the president,” he said. “We’re holding him to his word.”
Stupak was at a press conference to call for the repeal of the North American Free Trade Agreement, but the crowd of reporters that gathered wanted to ask about abortion.
The Michigan moderate initially said he wouldn’t answer questions about health care, but then he fielded several. He was standing with Reps. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.). Taylor said that they were okay with reporter questions on health care because they both voted for Stupak’s amendment and against the final bill.
“Why do you think we invited this rock star? Do you think you’d come to see us?” Taylor said.
“Some people refer to (me) as Rockette,” Stupak said, to laughter.
Stupak told the crowd that he doesn’t care about process, only the outcome, in making sure no provisions in the final legislation can be construed to allow abortion.
“It doesn’t have to be the ‘Stupak amendment,’” he said. “Heck, we can make it the (Gene) ‘Taylor amendment.’ I don’t care. I have no pride of authorship.”
Taylor moved toward the microphone.
“No, because I’m not going to vote for the bill,” the Democrat said.
Two senior administration officials said the White House is telling Democrats reconsidering their support for health care reform that they will pay the price for their original vote no matter what happens, so they should reap the political benefits of actually passing a law.
There are 59 senators and 216 House members who put themselves on the record in support of the Democratic plan for health care reform. And the way the White House and Democratic leaders see it, they have little choice but to vote for it again: Think John Kerry, and his immortal words about an Iraq war appropriations bill – that he was for it before he was against it.
“Flip-flopping is dangerous in this business,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide familiar with the strategy.
Speaking in the East Room of the White House to a room full of doctors and nurses, many in hospital scrubs and white coats, President Barack Obama did not touch on such political realities. Instead, he signaled the kind of personal involvement in pushing the legislation over the next few weeks that has been absent – at least publicly - since the upset victory of Sen. Scott Brown in the Massachusetts special election in January ended the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority and put health care in doubt.
Kicking off what he promised would be an aggressive campaign, Obama called on Congress to schedule a vote, saying the time for talking is done. And without saying the word "reconciliation," Obama made it clear that he¹ll pass legislation with only Democratic votes if necessary.
The president laid down a timetable that would wrap up the bill before the Easter break in Congress as well as a Democratic line of attack: We’re not passing health care in a backroom deal because it has already passed in both the House and the Senate under the traditional rules. All that’s left now is the cleanup.
“The American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future,” Obama said. “I don¹t know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing this reform into law.”
Congressional leaders continued Wednesday to lock down a strategy on the process, timing and substance of the bill, aides said. The next major step will be to send the reconciliation bill to the Congressional Budget Office for a cost estimate, which could take days or even weeks to finalize.
House leaders, meanwhile, started the process of smoothing opposition to a finished package. Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Wednesday with New York Democrats in her office off the House floor to assuage concerns about the Medicaid expansion.
Since New York already subsidizes more people under Medicaid than most states, it is slated to get less federal aid than states that will be forced under the bill to expand their Medicaid rolls to people with incomes 133 percent above the poverty line - a standard New York already meets.
And quietly, behind the scenes, White House officials and leaders began the critical task of shoring up support.
The House will be asked to cast two more votes – the first on the Senate bill, which contains many elements that liberal members detest, and the second on a package of fixes. The Senate will only have to vote on the second bill through reconciliation, which allows passage with a simple majority rather than 60 votes.
As Democratic leaders urge lawmakers not to reverse their initial vote for the bill, they need to make the opposite case to the 39 House members who opposed reform on the first go around. Neera Tanden, a former health policy aide in the Obama administration, laid out the pitch in a colunm posted Wednesday on The New Republic website.
"As a matter of policy, the Senate bill is a moderate Democrat's dream," Tanden wrote. "House moderates have to ask themselves, apart from political considerations, how can they now vote against a bill that senators Lincoln, Lieberman, Landrieu and Bayh have all voted for?"
Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said she doesn’t buy the argument on flip-flopping.
She is perhaps the Senate’s most endangered Democrat, facing a primary challenge from the left and, if she survives that, a general election fight from the right. She drew a distinction between her vote in favor of the Senate bill and her opposition to the reconciliation measure.
“I wouldn¹t be voting against the Senate health care bill,” Lincoln said.
“The Senate bill will be what the House passes. Ive been supportive of the Senate bill.” The reconciliation measure “would be a whole other bill,” she said.
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, who has remained undecided on the reconciliation measure, said the argument doesn¹t hold merit because lawmakers aren¹t voting on the same bill. But, she added, lawmakers need to stop looking at the issue through such a political lens and at how their actions will play “politically.”
“You know, there is a substance here that is really important,” she said.
“I’m just so sick of this place and it all being about power and elections and not about people out there. We really need to get beyond the ‘politically’ part.”
Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said he expected the White House to argue to Democrats that they can¹t turn against their vote now.
“It sells itself,” Rockefeller said. “That is an argument I am comfortable with because it needs to be made.”
Distrust of the Senate is a problem for some House members and could make it hard for any Democrat to vote for the Senate bill unless he or she has absolute confidence that Majority Leader Harry Reid and the president will apply their changes through the reconciliation process.
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 290 times, shame on me,” said New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, an always quotable backer of the most sweeping reforms.
“Most things the Senate said they would do, they haven¹t done. There are too many deficiencies in the Senate bill for us to go on faith.”
Democrats, no matter how they vote, are expected to come under Republican attack.
House Republicans announced their own latest effort to pressure potential swing votes: “Project Code Red,” which will highlight everything the Democrats say on the issue of health care and make sure GOP candidates running against them back home respond.
And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) predicted “every election in America this fall will be a referendum on this issue.”
The political dynamics put lawmakers like New York Rep. Michael Arcuri, who voted for the initial House bill, in a bind. He expressed frustration with the Senate measure and gave every indication that he’s prepared to vote against the final package; his only caveat was that he hadn’t seen the finished language.
“What I have seen so far, I don’t like the bill,” Arcuri said. “The House bill really accomplished something. It was a tough vote, but I thought it was the right thing to do. I don’t see how the Senate bill will do the kind of things I want to do with health care. It¹s not what I¹m going to support at this point.”
Arcuri complained that the Senate bill lacks a public option, fails to dissolve an antitrust exemption for health insurance companies and won’t allow the federal government to negotiate drug prices under Medicare. He also opposes the tax on high-end health care plans.
His distaste for the Senate bill is hardly unique, but many of his House colleagues signaled a willingness to back an imperfect product over no product at all - a calculation the White House is counting on, in part, because flipping now would be politically perilous.
In the weeks ahead, undecided Democrats will be asked to weigh their objections to parts of the final package against a historic opportunity to provide health insurance to as many as 30 million Americans who currently lack it.
Connecticut Rep. Joe Courtney, an outspoken opponent of the Senate¹s tax on high-end health care plans, doesn¹t like seeing the so-called Cadillac tax in a finished bill. But he¹s not sure that this alone is reason to vote against a final product.
“Obviously, this is a generational moment,” Courtney said. “It¹s a long time ago before the forces built up again. So this is nothing to be trifled with in terms of that opportunity.”
First-term Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly acknowledged that the bill he will have to vote on represents what he called “³the last best chance, and I’m very aware of that, very, very aware of that. So I certainly feel that burden.”
“Could I have a different vote on this bill than I had on the previous one? Absolutely,” said Connolly, who voted for the initial House bill.
“It’s a different bill. Am I likely to be a changed vote? Well, we’ll have to see. I believe we need health care reform. I am passionately committed to that. I think it¹s a terrible missed opportunity to let this slip through our fingers.”
The Senate's healthcare bill would lose 12 Democratic votes in the House, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Wednesday.
Stupak, the sponsor of an amendment to the House healthcare bill which barred federal subsidies for health plans covering abortion, said that 12 lawmakers who had previously supported healthcare reform legislation in the House.
"It's accurate to say there are at least 12 of us who voted for healthcare that have indicated to the speaker and others that unless you change this language, we will vote against it," Stupak said during an appearance on MSNBC.
Stupak and other Democrats who oppose abortion-rights have threatened to fell the healthcare effort before Congress over the issue of abortion. They say the Senate's provision, which had been demanded by centrist Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), does not go far enough in preventing federal money from going to support abortion.
The congressman's comments come on the heels of his claims last week, when he said he knows of 15-20 Democratic lawmakers who are witholding support for the bill because of "other problems." But it is not clear if or how many overlap between the two groups.
The Michigan Democrat said he'd spoken to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) about the prospects of a "sidebar" bill on abortion that would be tied to the final healthcare bill.
"It would have to be a separate bill, you could sidebar it to the final bill," he said. "One bill doesn't pass without the other. They walk down the aisle together."
Pelosi will have to get 216 votes together to pass her healthcare bill after retirements and resignations have left some vacancies in the House. She passed the House health bill in November with a couple of excess votes, but that was only after adopting the Stupak amendment in order to placate centrists with concerns on abortion.
Stupak said he still suspected, though, that Democrats wouldn't allow their health reform efforts, one of their top domestic priorities, go down over concerns on abortion.
Despite a last-minute weekend deal that put the Senate on the brink of passing health care reform this week, liberal and moderate Democrats remain on a collision course over the bill, as both sides dug in Sunday for the next phase of negotiations.
President Barack Obama’s liberal base and powerful union leaders once hoped the expected House-Senate conference would partly undo a year of retreats and compromises, with Obama weighing in to nudge the moderate Senate bill to the left.
But the titanic struggle to lock in Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) as the 60th senator for the first key test vote early Monday morning has changed all that. The need to hold Nelson and other moderates in line means major changes on the public option, abortion, taxes, Medicare and Medicaid are unlikely — and that the Senate’s vision of health reform is likely to prevail over the House’s in the final talks.
“It is very clear that the bill — the final bill — to pass in the United States Senate is going to have to be very close to the bill that has been negotiated here,” Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Otherwise, you will not get 60 votes in the United States Senate.”
Nelson, who received assurances of a “limited conference” to secure his vote for the Senate bill, has already laid down at least two deal breakers in the House bill that he can’t support: the inclusion of a government insurance plan and an income tax increase on wealthy individuals.
“That would break it,” Nelson said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
House Democrats acknowledge that they will be limited in how far they can tweak the Senate compromise. But House leadership also knows that its rank and file need to force some changes, however small, before they will accept the final package — as a face-saving measure to be able to swallow late changes to the bill in the Senate, most notably the decision to eliminate a public option.
But on the left, the sentiments of a liberal base that revolted over concessions to moderates were channeled Sunday by Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, who last week repeatedly called on Democrats to scrap the bill.
“This can’t be the final version of the bill,” Dean said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It simply sets us on a track in this country which is expensive and where we’re going to have lots more political fights.”
In a slight shift, however, Dean tempered his words, saying the bill is better than it was earlier in the week.
“I would certainly not vote for this bill if this were the final product,” Dean said. “I would let this thing go to conference committee, and let’s see if we can fix it some more.”
Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, identified areas beyond the public option in which Democrats in both chambers could agree, including boosting the federal insurance subsidies for middle-income Americans and strengthening insurance regulations.
“It is about progress, and we now have to fight for the changes in the conference committee and decide, when it is over,” whether to support it, Stern said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Senior administration officials contend the conference will not be as difficult as predicted because the differences between the two chambers have been known for months. “Once the Senate passes this bill, obviously there’s work to be done,” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on “State of the Union.”
Two big voices in the health-reform debate came out with endorsements of the measure moving ahead in the Senate this week: the Federation of American Hospitals, which represents private community hospitals, and AARP, the nation’s largest seniors organization, which urged the Senate to move ahead with debate.
In addition, Democrats desperately tried to avoid an ugly public fight over abortion, but it looks as though the issue will haunt them right up until the end.
Abortion-rights supporters and foes alike blasted the compromise Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cut with Nelson late Friday night. But it’s unclear whether their opposition will be enough to sink the broader bill.
“I have some deep reservations with this Nelson language on first examination,” Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), a co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, told POLITICO on Sunday.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), a leading abortion opponent, said during the weekend, “While I and many other pro-life Democratic House members wish to see health care coverage for all Americans, the proposed Senate language is unacceptable.”
The final Senate bill grants state legislatures the right to prevent insurance plans that operate in the proposed health insurance exchange from covering elective abortions. The changes also require people who seek abortion coverage through the exchange to pay two separate checks each month to their insurance company to “segregate” federal funds from private funds that pay for abortion.
Reproductive-rights advocates argue the new system would create a more onerous burden for women seeking coverage for the procedure, while abortion opponents have argued throughout the debate that segregating payments still violates the existing prohibition on federal funds being used to pay for abortion.
Douglas Johnson, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, called the changes “book-keeping contortions” and said that his group plans to put pressure on any senator who votes to consider the changes Reid unveiled.
But the real fight will occur in negotiations between House and Senate leaders over a final bill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California can’t afford to lose any Democrats. And with Stupak threatening to vote against the Senate compromise, she’ll need to offset his vote with other Democrats who voted against it the first time. She might be able to pick up some moderate-to-conservative Democrats who favor the Senate approach, but many of these lawmakers will need to be OK with the final abortion restrictions.
On the other side, a bloc of abortion-rights backers, led by DeGette, has already promised to vote against any bill that includes Stupak’s amendment, which would prevent people who receive government subsidies from purchasing coverage for elective abortions through the exchange. DeGette believes many of the 41 Democrats who voted for Stupak and “yes” on the House health care bill are willing to work with party leaders to find a middle ground.
The opposing camps are similarly entrenched on the public option and the method for financing the health care expansion. The House would create a government-sponsored insurance plan, but the Senate bill is silent on this point. After several attempts at compromise, Reid nixed the public option altogether.
The taxes could prove difficult to bridge. The House relies on a so-called millionaires’ tax, and has refused to consider the tax on expensive insurance plans. The Senate has taken the exact opposite posture. But because the White House has weighed in several times in favor of the tax on “Cadillac” plans, as a key component to slow the growth rate in health care spending, the Senate is likely to win this round.
Meanwhile, Republicans increaed their attacks on the bill Sunday, criticizing a variety of deals cut to win the votes of Democratic senators, such as Nelson, who got the federal government to pick up the cost of any Medicaid expansion under the health reform bill in the state of Nebraska forever. Republicans said Democrats have refused to say which state would get about $100 million inserted into the bill on behalf of a still unidentified university hospital.
“This process is not legislation. This process is corruption,” said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). “And it’s a shame that that’s the only way we can come to consensus in this country is to buy votes.”
But Nelson defended his efforts. “I always put Nebraska first,” he told POLITICO in an interview Saturday. “But I looked at this through the standpoint of Nebraskans and the country. ... There is a difference between holding out for something and holding up. I was holding out for something to make it better.”
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.
An aide to Rep. Bart Stupak (D. Mich.) coordinated opposition to the Senate health bill’s abortion compromise this morning with the Republican Senate leadership according to a chain of frantic emails obtained this morning by POLITICO.
Stupak, in an interview with POLITICO, called the Senate’s bill’s abortion position "unacceptable" – but disavowed his staffer’s collaboration with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
“I never talked to McConnell about the health care bill,” said Stupak, adding that that “I did not authorize the email [which] “was sent without my knowledge.”
Stupak said that he has discussed the Senate’s abortion position with conservative Democratic senators Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Robert Casey (Penn.). His opposition to the senate's language, in spite of those conversations and intense pressure from the White House, could augur a challenge to the compromise in the House when the two versions of the bill are reconciled.
The Senate language represented “a dramatic shift in federal policy,” said Stupak, adding that he remained hopeful that the differences could be resolved in conference. Nelson, though, said earlier Saturday that his support for the legislation was contingent on the abortion compromise remaining in it.
The emails suggest a previously unseen degree of coordination between the offices of Stupak and McConnell.
Stupak is the leader of a group of pro-life Democrats who say they’ll oppose the sweeping legislation if it uses government money to pay for abortion, while McConnell is firmly committed to killing the legislation. The fact that their offices have made common cause against the Senates health care compromise will likely further infuriate Stupak’s Democratic colleagues in the House, and demonstrates his willingness to stop any bill that doesn’t pass his test.
“Guys - when will we see your letters of opposition to the managers amendment?? We need them ASAP!” wrote Erika Smith, the Stupak aide, at 9:23 this morning, less than an hour after the amendment had become available.
The email’s recipients included key staffers for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, National Right to Life, the Family Research Council, as well as Autumn Fredericks Christensen, aide to top pro-life Republican Joe Pitts, and Lanier Swann, a McConnell aide.
A minute after Smith sent out her plea, Lanier reiterated it to the list.
“Nelson is telling people in the building he will vote yes. If there was any time to weigh in against this deal —- THIS IS IT,” Swann wrote at 9:24 a.m.
An official at the National Right to Life Committee, Douglas Johnson, released a statement Saturday afternoon calling the Senate compromise “light years” away from Stupak's amendment.
“The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems,” he said.
The manager’s amendment, which emerged after hours of negotiations between Nelson and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, stops short of the total ban on health insurance plans that participate in a new exchange system offering abortion coverage. Instead, it includes a provision that allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in the exchanges.
The amendment also requires that health plans that provide abortion services separate, for accounting purposes, private premiums and federal funds, and ensure that the federal funds don't pay for abortion services, a maneuver derided in the past by anti-abortion groups as a shell game.
The compromise paved the way for a Senate vote on President Obama's top priority, but the frantic emails this morning suggest the House may remain an obstacle.
Stupak said that he was in Northern Michigan, without internet access, with the emails were sent from his office to McConnell’s. Swann “should have let me make up my own mind,” said Stupak.
A spokesman for McConnell declined to comment about the staffers’ exchange.
The Senate rejected 54 to 45 an amendment to tighten restrictions on federal funding for abortion, casting doubt on the future of the Democratic health reform bill.
The amendment’s sponsor, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, threatened to filibuster the legislation if his amendment failed. The question now is whether Nelson continues working with Democratic leadership both on his abortion concerns and as a member of a coalition of liberal and moderate senators trying to bridge their differences on the public option.
"What happened tonight makes it harder to be supportive. We'll see what happens," Nelson said after the vote.
Nelson said he isn't going to work with Reid on a compromise, "I had no Plan B. I'm not looking for a Plan B, but others may be," he said, adding, "I always listen to the leader if the leader had something to say."
In recent days, Nelson had signaled a willingness to continue talks as has Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who needs Nelson’s vote to pass reform through the chamber.
“If the Nelson amendment fails, I'm happy to work with him on this. If he doesn't succeed, I'm happy to work with him on something else,” Reid said before the vote.
Nelson told POLITICO last 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.”
The amendment would have prohibited federal funds from paying for abortion. It prohibits the public option from covering abortion and blocks consumers from using subsidies to purchase a health insurance policy that covers abortion.
Update: Democratic Sens. Bayh, Casey, Conrad, Dorgan, Kaufman, Nelson and Pryor voted in favor of the amendment. Republican Sens. Snowe and Collins voted against it. And Democratic Sen. Byrd did not vote.
The Senate narrowly rejected an amendment that would have restricted abortion coverage in the pending health-care bill, leaving in question whether Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has the 60 votes needed to move the bill toward final passage.
The measure, which failed 54-45, addressed the scope of restrictions on coverage of abortion services for people who receive subsidies to buy insurance. The outcome was expected, but could cost the support of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who has threatened to filibuster the $848 billion bill unless abortion restrictions are tightened.
Reid told reporters earlier Tuesday afternoon he would consider other language to allay Nelson's concerns. "If in fact he doesn't succeed here, we'll try something else," Reid said.
The vote came amid intense final negotiations on the bill, as Reid aims to wrap up debate on amendments and begin a long procedural stand-off with Republicans -- possibly extending 10 days -- before the bill can come to a final vote before Christmas.
Nelson also is participating in talks to establish an alternative to the public insurance option, and said he would continue to negotiate with Reid and his colleagues on the overall bill. "People are talking," he said before the abortion vote. "And that's usually a good thing."
Sources: Politico, Washington Post, The Daily Beast
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
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."
By teeing up a public battle over abortion in the health care bill now before the Senate, congressional Democrats could be risking more than just the fate of the legislation.
Hanging in the balance are millions of Catholic swing voters who moved decisively to the Democrats in 2008 and who could shift away just as readily in 2010.
According to exit polls, President Barack Obama won the support of 53 percent of Catholic voters, a seven-point increase over the showing of the Democrats’ 2004 nominee, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a Catholic. Among Latino Catholics, who are often more conservative than their white counterparts on social issues, Obama did even better, winning more than two-thirds of their support, a 14-point improvement over Kerry’s totals, according to an analysis by the Pew Research Center.
Those gains will be at risk if a polarizing abortion fight takes place in the Senate.
“There could be political repercussions in the election. It could be harder for the Democrats to keep those Catholics voters they gained and they may put some of their members at risk,” said John Green, a religion and politics expert at the Bliss Institute at the University of Akron.
Moreover, said Green, Catholics are a constituency that backs the reform effort itself. “To alienate them on abortion could be to alienate them on health care reform,” he said.
The abortion issue, practically dormant during the 2008 campaign, was reignited in the last hours of the health care debate in the House because of an amendment offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) that would prohibit the use of federal subsidies to pay for insurance that covers abortion, except in the cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is threatened.
The amendment, after heavy lobbying by the Catholic Church, eventually passed despite the furious objection of the abortion rights advocates who have long been a key part of the Democratic base. Now the fight goes to the Senate, where there will be a sharp division on the issue between party liberals and moderates.
Already it’s become an issue in the primary to choose a Democratic candidate for the Massachusetts Senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy.
In a local television interview, one of the candidates, state Attorney General Martha Coakley, said that if she had been in the Senate she would have killed the health care reform bill rather than support the Stupak amendment.
One of her opponents, Rep. Michael Capuano, defended his House vote for the bill by saying he wanted to keep the reform effort moving. But he vowed to vote against a final bill if it still contains the abortion funding amendment.
In the neighboring and equally Democratic and Catholic state of Rhode Island, the abortion amendment has played out another way. Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin, an outspoken critic of prominent Catholic politicians he believes are acting against church tenets, is engaged in a public feud with Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy, who voted against the Stupak amendment.
Anger over the church’s lobbying for the amendment prompted Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), an abortions rights supporter, to call for an Internal Revenue Service investigation of the church’s tax status.
It’s a hollow threat. No law prohibits religious organizations from lobbying Congress, provided the bulk of their budget expenditures are spent on other programs.
But the Woolsey retaliatory attack, published in POLITICO, generated fresh headlines about the dispute and could drive a deeper wedge between the party and a key electoral constituency.
Tad Devine, a Democratic political consultant, said the party would be better off downplaying the disagreement.
“Voters who consider themselves Catholic are able to see the church teachings in ways that can be pro-Democratic Party or pro-Republican Party,” said Devine, noting that the church is also a strong advocate for immigrants in the health care debate.
But smoothing over the conflict isn’t likely to become an option. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is just now surveying his members to measure passions on the issue, a spokesman said.
Sen. Ben Nelson, an abortion rights opponent, has said language banning taxpayer-backed abortion coverage is essential to winning his support. But a spokesman for the Nebraska Democrat told POLITICO Thursday that he has no plans now to introduce an amendment and he is not wedded to the exact wording in the House bill.
Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), who also opposes abortion rights, said legislation should contain “strong language” to prohibit federal funds from being used to pay for abortion insurance coverage. Beyond that, however, he hasn’t said what his intentions are since Reid has yet to unveil a final bill.
Meanwhile, advocates on both sides are gearing up for a major showdown over the issue.
“When the Senate takes up the issue, it will be in the light of day, with the nations eyes upon them,” said Douglas Johnson, chief lobbyist for the National Right to Life Committee.
“We’ve read in the papers that Harry Reid will put a public plan in his bill. I suspect it will have phony language that will allow for using public funds for abortion,” he added.
For weeks, priests have used Sunday sermons to urge parishioners to contact their representatives and ask them to back amendments blocking federally-backed abortion coverage.
They have also put Republicans on notice that the church won’t tolerate attempts to use procedural tactics to scuttle such amendments – as was contemplated by House Republicans.
But even if the abortion language is adopted, it’s unclear if the Catholic Church ultimately will endorse the health reform legislation. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the church’s main lobbying arm, declined comment for this article.
In a statement released after the House adopted the Stupak amendment, Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George, president of the conference, praised the vote but raised other concerns that could spark debate on other divisive, social issues.
For instance, George noted the conference remained “deeply concerned that immigrants be treated fairly and not lose the health care coverage they now have.”
Progressives are also girding for the Senate fight.
On Monday, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which includes an array of Protestant, Jewish and some Catholic members will hold a news conference with First Amendment advocates to push back against opponents of abortion rights.
The coalition will urge Congress to pass a final health care bill ensures abortions are “safe, legal and accessible” and one that “respects diverse religious beliefs.”
Abortion restriction make or break for health care bill. After the House passed a sweeping health care reform package late Saturday night, Democrats said the House bill would not have passed without denying insurance coverage for abortion. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports.
Dems divided on health bill. The divide over health care reform has shifted from the public option to abortion. What does President Obama think of the Stupak amendment? Dr. Nancy Snyderman talks with Linda Douglass, communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform.
Democrats who thought a vote against the sweeping health care package would inoculate them from political attack are facing serious blowback from angry constituents and interest groups on the left—fierce opposition that could prove as consequential as anything Republicans could have thrown at them.
For some of 39 House Democrats who opposed the bill, there are protests outside their offices and promises of retribution. For others, there are attempts to shut off their campaign money spigot. Still more are about to get drilled in a television ad campaign paid for by Democratic donors.
What they’ve all discovered is that there’s no safe harbor when it comes to the $1.2 trillion measure that the House passed Saturday
Darcy Burner, executive director of the American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation, said that the anger over the vote was a natural outgrowth of the value liberals have placed on the health care push.
“I think, for the most part, the Democrats who voted ‘no’ on the health bill and who are getting heat deserve it,” said Burner.
One of those Democrats is Rep. Jim Matheson, who represents a solidly Republican district in Utah. Despite the difficult nature of his district, local Democrats responded with indignation upon hearing of his vote.
Democratic state Sen. Scott McCoy immediately floated the idea on his Facebook page of launching a primary campaign against the five-term incumbent.
On Tuesday, McCoy took a step back and told POLITICO he wasn’t interested in a run. But he made little secret of what he thought of Matheson’s vote, saying, “I think there [is] a sense of frustration and disappointment out there.”
“There are a number of people in Jim’s district who are disappointed,” he added.
Veteran Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, also found himself under fire Monday for his ‘no’ vote as the group Grassroots Organizing held a protest outside his Jefferson City office.
“The man has been in Congress for 32 years,” said Robin Acree, the group’s executive director. “I never thought I’d be arguing with people who for years and years and years campaigned on doing the right thing.”
In central Florida, first-term Democratic Rep. Suzanne Kosmas was branded a “traitor” on signs at a protest Sunday that attracted about 60 people. Late last month, a group called the Alliance for Retired Americans staged a rally at one Kosmas’s district offices—an effort the group plans to repeat again this week.
“She was quite deceptive,” said Tony Fransetta, president of the organization’s Florida chapter. “It was kind of like a slap in the face from someone you’d expect to be a friend.”
“We’re not going to take it sitting down,” he said. “There will be a price extracted from what she did.”
In Washington state, state and local party officials also made clear that they were unhappy with the course that Rep. Brian Baird pursued.
“The Washington state Democratic Party expects all of the members of our congressional delegation to support the President and Speaker Pelosi. And vote for this bill,” Washington state Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz told local reporters after Baird announced last week that he wouldn’t be supporting the package.
A delegation from Vancouver’s Clark County Democratic Central Committee on Monday requested a meeting with Baird in the district to encourage him to vote yes on the final version of the Health Care Reform bill.
Chris Bassett, a Vancouver-based Democratic activist who writes a blog about Clark County politics, said the congressman had damaged his standing within the party.
“Brian’s really moving the wrong way,” he said. “A lot of Democrats are going to sit on their hands in 2010.”
“This, for a lot of folks like myself frankly, is the last straw,” Bassett said.
Much of the backlash is emanating from the progressive online community, where on Monday Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas urged fellow netroots activists to “ditch the [Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee], ” arguing that the party committee would be committed to protecting incumbent Democrats who voted against the bill.
“So here's the bottom line—skip any donations to the DCCC. Their first priority is incumbent retention, and they're (necessarily) issue agnostic. They'll be dumping millions into defending these seats. Instead, give to those elected officials who best reflect your values,” wrote Moulitsas.
One specific target of netroots anger is Rep. Larry Kissell, the first-term North Carolina congressman who, activists are quick to point out, was a favorite of the liberal blogosphere in his failed 2006 House bid.
On Friday, after Kissell announced he would vote against the bill, Chris Bowers of the prominent liberal blog Open Left sent an e-mail to Kissell donors urging them to ask the freshman for their money back.
“Right now, Democrats do not have the votes to pass this bill, and Congressman Larry Kissell has merged as a potential vote against reform,” Bowers wrote. “Tell the campaign that, if Congressman Kissell votes against health care reform this weekend, you will be calling again on Monday to ask for your money back.”
Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee was equally direct.
“Folks like Larry Kissell and [Democratic] Rep. Heath Shuler emanate weakness. Both first won their seats with netroots money, both won by double digits in 2008, both have constituents that desperately need health care reform, and neither has the self-confidence to explain a vote for health care reform to voters?” he said. “Weak sauce. Luckily, we know they won't fight back when we beat them up in their district.”
That won’t be the only Democrat-on-Democrat violence that results from the vote.
Other liberal groups are preparing to bring in the heavy artillery, launching advertising campaigns targeting the Democrats for their ‘no’ votes. MoveOn.org has announced that it was launching a $500,000 TV campaign targeting six Democratic dissenters. On Tuesday, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee announced the launch of a “Hit the Blue Dogs” online ad campaign targeting 10 Democrats.
MoveOn.org Executive Director Justin Ruben said his organization—in addition to airing “thank you” ads at the Democrats in competitive and marginal districts who took a tough vote in favor of the bill—planned to hold rallies this week in front of offices of Democrat and Republican members who voted against the bill.
Ruben said the Democratic votes against the bill represented a slap-in-the-face to activists, noting that the loss of their liberal bases could spell political peril.
“For a lot of members, this was the most important House vote in a generation,” said Ruben. “Many of these folks are people our members worked hard to elect and there is a tremendous feeling of betrayal.”
“I think they will pay a real price from the base if they continue to take this position,” he said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid found his health reform efforts seriously complicated Monday by the explosive issue of abortion, as key centrist senators said they wanted to see airtight language in the bill blocking federal funding for the procedure.
Abortion threatened to derail a House health reform bill Saturday, and now it’s standing in the way of Reid’s attempts to get 60 votes as well, with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) saying he wants to see language as restrictive as the House’s in the Senate bill.
If the language isn’t clear in prohibiting federal funds for abortion, “you could be sure I would vote against it,” said Nelson, who met with Reid on Monday.
Other key moderates didn’t go quite that far, but at least two others — Sens. Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana — said they, too, want to ensure that the Senate bill prevents federal dollars from paying for abortion.
“I think all of us have recognized throughout that there are three things” — abortion, illegal immigration and the public option — “that could really bring this down,” said Conrad, the only Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee to vote with Republicans on amendments restricting abortion rights.
“I don’t know that anyone has quite found the right formula yet,” Conrad said about the abortion language.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed on Saturday to insert an amendment to the health reform bill that would prevent the use of federal subsidies to pay for insurance that covers elective abortion — winning her enough votes to pass the bill but infuriating some Democratic lawmakers.
President Barack Obama told ABC News on Monday that Congress should change the language. “I laid out a very simple principle, which is, this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is, federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.”
On Tuesday, former President Bill Clinton will address the Democratic caucus lunch on health care, a source close to the former president said. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked Clinton to address the caucus, the source said.
In the House, lawmakers who were forced over the weekend to accept the compromise made clear Monday that they wouldn’t do it again. Forty-one members — enough to stall passage — told Pelosi that they would oppose a conference report that goes any further than current law in restricting abortion rights.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told POLITICO on Monday that the group "is not going to stand for a bill that has this kind of language in it.”
Asked if NARAL would oppose a final health care bill with the so-called Stupak amendment, Keenan said she was operating on the premise that it will not include the restrictive language but that NARAL would work against the overall bill if it did.
“Absolutely,” she said. “We are prepared to stop at nothing.”
Added Laurie Rubiner, vice president for policy at Planned Parenthood: “We are not finished. The Senate is always a cooling-off place. We expect that will be true in this instance as well.”
Democratic leaders have tried to keep abortion out of the health care debate, saying it should not be used by either side to push the law in one direction or another. But the House’s inclusion of the amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Rep. Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.) makes it virtually certain that there will be a new Senate litmus test for abortion activists — both proponents and opponents.
“It’s going to be a major issue, I’m sure,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said.
The issue puts Reid in a particularly difficult spot. He opposes abortion rights except in cases of incest or rape or when the life of the mother is endangered. But Reid has also tried to avoid making his caucus, which overwhelmingly supports abortion rights, to take abortion votes in the Senate.
He faces pressure from the reproductive rights community to keep the Stupak language out of the merged Senate bill — a move that would make it difficult to add it on the Senate floor, given the majority of senators support abortion rights. But the prospect of circumventing abortion opponents could be uncomfortable for Reid, who has always relied on an ability to massage social conservatives in Nevada.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the majority leader needs to speak with his members, but he would look to replicate language in the Finance Committee and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bills, which place restrictions on federal funding of abortion.
“The caucus will eventually work its will on this issue,” Durbin said. “I hope that we can find a way around it.”
But it is already an issue.
“If push comes to shove for a lot of moderate Democrats in the Senate, it’s going to be tough to make a stink about getting rid of Stupak-Pitts,” said Rachel Laser, culture program director at Third Way, a centrist policy organization. “It creates that much more of an obstacle. We are so far down the field with what happened in the House.”
Nelson is still evaluating his strategy, a spokesman told POLITICO on Monday, but he wants to see abortion language as restrictive as the Stupak amendment in the health care reform bill.
“Sen. Nelson is strongly pro-life and was pleased the Stupak amendment passed with such strong support,” the spokesman said in a statement. “He believes that no federal money — including subsidies or tax credits — should be used to buy insurance coverage for abortion. This is a very important issue to Sen. Nelson, and it is highly unlikely he would support a bill that doesn’t clearly prohibit federal dollars from going to abortion.”
The Stupak amendment came about so quickly that the abortion rights community didn’t have time to mobilize.
“Now we’ve got some time to educate people,” said Rubiner, who described the amendment as a “middle-class abortion ban.”
There have been so few votes on abortion in the Senate in recent years that aides to socially conservative senators say they can’t be sure right now where the votes would be on Stupak.
In part that’s because Democrats have worked hard to avoid the issue on the floor. De-emphasizing hot-button social issues was a big part of their winning electoral strategy in 2006 and 2008, as new Democratic senators toppled Republicans by talking about pocketbook issues and the Iraq war.
This year, there’s no Democrat more threatened by the prospect of an abortion vote than Reid, who has used a carefully mixed record on abortion to portray himself as moderate on social issues to a Nevada electorate that has favored social conservatives in recent years.
The three Senate appropriations bills that haven’t yet been brought to the floor all carry contentious abortion provisions: The Labor-Health and Human Services bill is the vehicle for the Hyde amendment; this year’s State and Foreign Operations bill would codify the president’s reversal of so-called Mexico City policy prohibiting overseas recipients of U.S. dollars from providing abortion-related services; and the Financial Services Committee bill would allow the District of Columbia to use local funds to pay for abortions.
It is Reid, not Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, who controls the floor schedule, and Republican aides say the abortion provisions may factor into Reid’s decision to hold back those bills.
The anti-abortion Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said he expected GOP senators to make the abortion issue a big focus on the floor. “I think it’s important that something like that be in it. There will be a number of us pushing that there not be abortion funding in the bill.”
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)
