She Don’t Buy Your Stupak Reasoning On The Abortion Amendment To The Health Care Bill

6 Responses to “She Don’t Buy Your Stupak Reasoning On The Abortion Amendment To The Health Care Bill”

1. GoldnI writes
   November 9th, 2009 5:37 pm

   Not to mention the biggest “subsidy” of all, the $250 billion yearly subsidization to employer-based healthcare plans, many of which do cover abortion. The Stupak amendment leaves that entirely untouched.

2. George writes
   November 9th, 2009 5:49 pm

   But the choice was Pelosi’s to ALLOW the amendment in the first place. And there are Pro-Life Dems who would NOT vote for the House bill without Stupak.

   So Pelosi conceded, KNOWING the result before the vote, and the House health bill had a chance to stay alive.

3. GoldnI writes
   November 9th, 2009 6:16 pm

   I’m not denying that, except that it passd with a wide enough margin that Coope lr had no reason for voting for it. And the budget reason simply isn’t good enough.

   Also, 23 Dems voted for the amendment but still voted against the bill. I stilldont know how you explain that one.

4. George writes
   November 9th, 2009 6:34 pm

   So let’s assume that Cooper didn’t know how the vote would “turn out.” Let’s also assume he’s pro-choice (which I confirmed today with his office) and he has to cast a vote at that moment.

   He knows that if Stupak fails, the health bill fails (the Speaker herself said so). So, he does what he thinks is best at that moment - and votes FOR it - thinking he would do whatever it takes to get it done.

   I think he did everything he could to get this bill passed. And his vote probably swayed other moderate dems to vote for it. Remember, 219 and 220 only voted YES AFTER they had the 218. So if Cooper hadn’t been on the YES list, things may have ended differently.

   I’m NOT his biggest fan by a LONG shot. I wish he hadn’t voted for it, but if he thought it was either vote for this so it can pass, or “kill the bill,” I’m glad he voted for it.

   Now on to the Senate! Call Lamar and Bob and voice your opinion.

5. George writes
   November 9th, 2009 6:42 pm

   I don’t understand where your budget argument comes from. From the way I read Ezra’s blog, Cooper was saying that some of his pro-life friends and the Bishops weren’t aware that govt. funds ALREADY indirectly paid for private plan premium susidies - so the govt. already “theoretically” paid for abortions.

   This was an “ah ha!” moment for people who didn’t want something that they didn’t realize we already had. And the most interesting part is that it’s not people with a “public option,” it’s people who have PRIVATE plans with govt. subsidies.

   For example, if a private family plan allowed the enrollee to have an abortion, the bishops and pro-lifers weren’t aware that my plan was paid, in part via subsidies, by the government. Therefore, the govt. is already paying for people to have abortions.

6. GoldnI writes
   November 9th, 2009 8:37 pm

   Therefore, the govt. is already paying for people to have abortions.

   Exactly (albeit remotely). That’s why the argument that it would amount to all these new subsidies and create a budget issue is ridiculous. If anything it would just shift the subsidies around.

   As far as the vote is concerned, that would be a possibility if the vote were close, but on this amendment, it really wasn’t. And on these controversial issues, they get a whip count before they bring it to the floor. They all knew this was going to pass.