Will the Senate Stand Against Stupak?

"That's the price of healthcare reform." That's what plenty of oh-so-well-meaning pundits have told those of us making a fuss over the Stupak amendment, the late-night attachment to the House healthcare reform bill that will leave virtually any woman accessing insurance through the health insurance exchange without abortion coverage. (Another argument that's cropped up is that the Stupak amendment won't actually affect abortion access for that many women, a claim that's based on faulty analysis of Guttmacher data on billing for abortion care, as Adam Sonfield explains.)

But both pro-choice and progressive healthcare reform leaders and members of Congress have come out swinging against the amendment, some going as far as to make it clear they'll refuse to support reform if Congressional Democrats decide to pay for it with women's healthcare. Calling the amendment a "middle-class abortion ban," Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said Wednesday that her organization would not support healthcare reform with an amendment further limiting access to abortion. Meanwhile, Senators Barbara Mikulski and Diane Feinstein have begun strategizing how to keep Stupak off the Senate bill, the New York Times reports.

"Keeping Stupak off the Senate bill is our primary goal right now," Laurie Rubiner, PPFA vice-president, said, "and chances are very good for that." "We're definitely hearing a lot of encouraging talk [about the Senate]," Donna Crane, public policy director at NARAL Pro-Choice America, adds. "The Senate thinks the House went too far."

Sen. Ben Nelson has grabbed headlines with the announcement that he won't support the Senate healthcare reform bill unless it, too, bans coverage of abortion for any plan financed in part by affordability credits, but advocates were doubtful that he could get the 60 votes necessary to have the bill considered. "If someone wants to offer this very radical amendment, which would really tear apart [a decades-long] compromise, then I think at that point they would need to have 60 votes to do it," Sen. Barbara Boxer told the Huffington Post. "It is a much more pro-choice Senate than it has been in a long time, and it is much more pro-choice than the House." "Ben Nelson is looking for any excuse to vote against healthcare reform," Rubiner says. "It's abortion today, it was the public plan yesterday."

NARAL, though it is running a petition asking Sen. Harry Reid to keep Stupak-like language off the Senate bill, has not yet drawn a line in the sand. "We don't have an answer to that question," Crane told me when I asked whether NARAL would support a healthcare reform bill with Stupak-like language attached. But the group's rhetoric is strong: in Politico, Nancy Keenan, NARAL president, said that "we are prepared to stop at nothing."

In order to fight the abortion restrictions successfully, the coalition needs to extend "beyond the women's health community," Richards said Wednesday. And indeed some of the most prominent progressive voices for healthcare reform are supporting joining the women's health advocates' fight. Health Care for America Now, the leading grassroots progressive coalition for reform, and its high-profile members, MoveOn and SEIU, have all decried Stupak. When asked how committed HCAN is to securing healthcare reform without further curtailing abortion access, National Campaign Director Richard Kirsch said, "It's a very strong commitment. We have a set of principles, one is comprehensive benefits, including reproductive health benefits which includes abortion care." Still, Kirsch acknowledged, it's possible HCAN could take a position against healthcare reform with major concessions on reproductive healthcare while some of its members decide to do the opposite.

But some pro-choice advocates clearly feel progressive groups, if not HCAN in particular, are sending mixed signals. On RH Reality Check, Amie Newman bemoaned an inbox-full of email from progressive advocacy groups who didn't even mention Stupak. She later received an email from MoveOn acknowledging the compromise on women's health, but not mobilizing MoveOn members to take action on the issue. Rubiner, however, said that "we've been talking with MoveOn and they'll be part of our mobilization."

Citing a "standing-room-only" meeting with progressive groups at the PPFA offices strategizing how to respond to Stupak, Richards said, "There's a fair amount of solidarity. It has to be clear that we will not support a bill with Stupak."

Readers concerned about the Stupak amendment can join Planned Parenthood in DC on December 2 for a National Lobby Day and can sign on to NARAL's petition to Sen. Reid.

Comments (46)

1. If the dems include this crap in their care bill, they might as well just hand their seats over to the rethugs in 2010. They'd do well to remember that women make up a significant number of voters and taking away their rights is the republican thing to do. Then again, I'm starting to have a hard time telling the republicans and democrats apart these days.

   This amendment should have died as soon as it was mentioned as well as the political career of the jackasses proposing it.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 11:43am

2. They'll likely split the difference between Stupak and Capps Amendments, leaning towards Capps.

   "Pro-life" Dems can still claim they voted for Stupak before Conference and vote for a more "Capps-friendly" bill later.

   Any Republican opponent is going to paint ANY vote for the health care bill as "pro-abortion", but if there's SOME ammo to fling back, the attack fails.'

   S'way the game is played. Don't play it and try to stay "ideologically pure" and you lose. (Repub or Dem)

   Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 11:48am

3. On the other hand, one could argue that it's better to pqss something rather than nothing.

   How would it look if at the end of President Obama's term his opponents can say, "You didn't pass anything, but your predecessor did something, even if it's just a prescription drug benefit."

   Posted by Mistral at 11/13/2009 @ 11:49am

4. And the price of German purity was 7,000,000 lives. We are headed that way daily.

   Posted by LOrion at 11/13/2009 @ 11:58am

5. 'On the other hand, one could argue that it's better to pass something rather than nothing.' -- Mistral

   But if they toss out their beliefs in the name of expediency they will be accused of just being another bunch of political hacks.

   Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/13/2009 @ 12:01pm

6. And the price of German purity was 7,000,000 lives. We are headed that way daily.

   Posted by LOrion at 11/13/2009 @ 11:58am

   A hell of a lot more people than that died in WWII. Check out the number of deaths for China and Russia.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 12:05pm

7. If the Dems are successful in reinserting funding for abortion, they will see the largest tax revolt in American history.

   If you thought you have had a ideological war in this country previously; it will pale to the level of revolt if ANY TAX DOLLARS could be used to fund abortions.

   BRING IT ON

   Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 12:07pm

8. Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 12:07pm

   Larry will of course not know this (or want to say it if he does), but.....

   even under the Hyde Amendment?

   Federal funds for abortions, in the case of rape, incest COULD be obtained.

   And nary a "massive tax revolt" in sight, huh?

   Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 12:22pm

9. "If the Dems are successful in reinserting funding for abortion, they will see the largest tax revolt in American history."

   and what about the republican bill (which contains funding for abortion), larry? any tax revolt if that passes?

   Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2009 @ 12:38pm

10. "it will pale to the level of revolt if ANY TAX DOLLARS could be used to fund abortions."

    what about a tax revolt if any tax dollars go towards the slaughter of iraq and afghani children?

    oh, i see.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2009 @ 12:40pm

11. what about a tax revolt if any tax dollars go towards the slaughter of iraq and afghani children?

    oh, i see.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2009 @ 12:40pm

    Abortion is specific to ending the life of an innocent person.

    War is fought against an enemy. An enemy in this case that purposely uses women and children as human shields.

    But even worse and something you and the anti-war left purposely ignore---it is the Muslims themselves who have killed most of the women and children. And they have done so purposely targeting innocents.

    Sorry Darla, but no amount of spin will change the fact that you and your baby killing friends PURPOSELY SEEK TO MURDER BABIES.

    you are the real baby killers.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 12:53pm

12. "An enemy in this case that purposely uses women and children as human shields"

    no spin there, none at all. larry is arguing that every single death of a woman or child in iraq and afghanistan was the result of the "enemy" using them as shields. their deaths had absolutely nothing to do with american bombs or bullets.

    larry just loves children. sorry, larry just loves AMERICAN children. iraqi and afghani children? well, they don't matter.

    hey larry? any comments on the republican bill (which contains funding for abortions)?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2009 @ 12:58pm

13. Posted by LOrion at 11/13/2009 @ 11:58am

    ????

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/13/2009 @ 1:03pm

14. "Sorry Darla, but no amount of spin will change the fact that you and your baby killing friends PURPOSELY SEEK TO MURDER BABIES."

    yeah, right. we women just love unwanted pregnancies, and can't wait to get an abortion. they're so much fun.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2009 @ 1:04pm

15. no spin there, none at all. larry is arguing that every single death of a woman or child in iraq and afghanistan was the result of the "enemy" using them as shields. their deaths had absolutely nothing to do with american bombs or bullets.

    larry just loves children. sorry, larry just loves AMERICAN children. iraqi and afghani children? well, they don't matter.

    hey larry? any comments on the republican bill (which contains funding for abortions)?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2009 @ 12:58pm

    Nowhere did I ever say that there have never been other casualties.

    But your twisted logic EQUATES accidently killing of civilians with the targeted killing of them by the terrorists. that is a morally bankrupt philosophy.

    I told you before that I didn't want Republicans to put forward ANY BILL. I don't want Congress involved with healthcare. I've said that over and over, yet libs like yourself keep asking about supporting a Republican alternative.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 1:10pm

16. "Sorry Darla, but no amount of spin will change the fact that you and your baby killing friends PURPOSELY SEEK TO MURDER BABIES."

    yeah, right. we women just love unwanted pregnancies, and can't wait to get an abortion. they're so much fun.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2009 @ 1:04pm

    Nowhere did I say that you "love abortions or how much fun they are".

    I said that you purposely seek to murder babies when you get abortions.

    that is the fact and you cannot change it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 1:12pm

17. Just as feminists strongly believe that they should have the say over whether or not they should be allowed to legally kill their own babies, pro-lifers believe just as strongly, if not moreso, that their position that a baby has a right to life it's life, is the moral one and the correct one.

    Most people, especially men never have to confront the issue. Men have no say, right now, whether or not thier son or daughter will be allowed to enter the world. A woman can snuff out it's life and it's legal. Where is the justice in that? If women can't handle the pregnancy, they should just keep their damn legs shut until they are mature enough to handle the responsibility.

    Of course I'm not referring to rape, incest or other medical problems that may occur as the result of the pregnancy. The baby still should not be aborted in those cases. But the life of the baby should be the foremost consideration unless there is an absolute threat of death to the mother that can be avoided with a medical abortion. I won't go that far as to say that a woman should have to give up her own life in order for her baby to be born, unless that is her wish.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/13/2009 @ 1:14pm

18. Can we just get health care already, seeesh?

    Posted by jfair at 11/13/2009 @ 1:22pm

19. just can't get away from the abortion thing can we...

    sigh...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/13/2009 @ 1:50pm

20. Nope, ibble, can't seem to get away fron it, and that is too bad because there will never be a meeting of the minds concerning pro and anti abortion peeps, and I think it was thrown into the mix by stupid stupak to put the skids on the HC bill, not because stupak really cared about abortion, sad fact, sad but true.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/13/2009 @ 2:16pm

21. Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/13/2009 @ 1:14pm

    Always curious on this, gunny....

    If abortion is "murder"...and you get your way and abortion is made illegal again....

    is someone who deliberately induces an abortion a "murderer" and therefore should be at risk of...

    capital punishment?

    Or are you not THAT serious about the issue?

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2009 @ 3:02pm

22. I think it was thrown into the mix by stupid stupak to put the skids on the HC bill, not because stupak really cared about abortion, sad fact, sad but true.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/13/2009 @ 2:16pm

    Bingo. That's exactly what it was intended to do. It's a wedge issue that's the number one play the rethugs revert to when they want to muddy up the waters.

    It's been in their play book for years. As Mask has pointed out, the GOP would never actually make all abortions 100% illegal because then they wouldn't be able to get on their soap boxes to convince the gullible to vote for them.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 3:05pm

23. "pro-lifers believe just as strongly, if not moreso, that their position that a baby has a right to life it's life, is the moral one and the correct one"

    gunslinger, you call yourself "pro-life" but yet you have no substantive objections to our presence in afghanistan and iraq, which in and of itself, has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

    how can you reconcile these two positions?

    "But your twisted logic EQUATES accidently killing of civilians with the targeted killing of them by the terrorists"

    how does one "accidentally" drop a bomb? i'm really curious as to how one does that. "oops, sorry, didn't mean to drop that 5,000 ton bomb on your village!" larry, you cannot reconcile our unwanted presence in two muslim countries, and your condemnation of abortion.

    "If women can't handle the pregnancy, they should just keep their damn legs shut until they are mature enough to handle the responsibility"

    did someone just say that?

    "I told you before that I didn't want Republicans to put forward ANY BILL"

    but can you see the hypocrisy of republicans putting forward a bill that funds abortions?

    Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2009 @ 3:23pm

24. "If women can't handle the pregnancy, they should just keep their damn legs shut until they are mature enough to handle the responsibility". Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/13/2009 @ 1:14pm

    And men should keep their d-cks in their pants.

    Posted by nursevic at 11/13/2009 @ 5:41pm

25. "If women can't handle the pregnancy, they should just keep their damn legs shut until they are mature enough to handle the responsibility". Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/13/2009 @ 1:14pm

    And men should keep their d-cks in their pants.

    Posted by nursevic at 11/13/2009 @ 5:41pm

    and the issues go away if people reserve sexual intimacy for marriage

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 5:56pm

26. "and the issues go away if people reserve sexual intimacy for marriage"

    research says otherwise

    Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2009 @ 7:26pm

27. "and the issues go away if people reserve sexual intimacy for marriage"

    research says otherwise

    Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2009 @ 7:

    STDS never occur in marriage where couples honor their marriage vows. And abortion in marriage is highly unlikely.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/13/2009 @ 8:15pm

28. Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2009 @ 3:23pm

    Sorry Darla but you are transparent as all hell. There is a world of difference in the two issues. I'm also pro capital punishment.

    But we all know where you are coming from. You don't believe in our national security because you hate America. You would like nothing more than to see this country go down. but then again, where would you go to post your unpatriotic rants. A dictator wiould hunt you down and kill you. You should pray to whatever supreme being you believe even if it's some marijuana plant, that you live in this country.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/13/2009 @ 10:40pm

29. Wow being pro choice equates to being un American and having a dictator hunt you down.Gunny you need to sit on a dock at sunrise and be happy you are an American.You don't have to get mad until you see the Chinese supertanker pull into Long Beach harbor.Then when you realize your friend, Ron the great deregulator, started the stampede to out sourcing with his pals it can fill you with pride.Pride that we have the greatest trade in balance in our history.Pride that you can say the liberals did it because you forget videotape was invented before GWB.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/13/2009 @ 10:56pm

30. Gunslinger, men have ALWAYS had the choice to dump their girlfriends and wives during an "inconvenient" pregnancy. I was raised Catholic and grew up with a few girls whose fathers left their mothers because of an "inconvenient" pregnancy. I also grew up with three children whose father left their mother when she became disabled.

    Sorry, antisocialist, but marriage is not a panacea for sexual problems. I know several married women who got STDs from their husbands, and yes, lots of married women get abortions.

    Posted by ktrig at 11/13/2009 @ 11:00pm

31. I think it was thrown into the mix by stupid stupak to put the skids on the HC bill, not because stupak really cared about abortion, sad fact, sad but true.

    Posted by Denise29 at 11/13/2009 @ 2:16pm

    Bingo. That's exactly what it was intended to do. It's a wedge issue that's the number one play the rethugs revert to when they want to muddy up the waters.

    It's been in their play book for years. As Mask has pointed out, the GOP would never actually make all abortions 100% illegal because then they wouldn't be able to get on their soap boxes to convince the gullible to vote for them.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2009 @ 3:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Moreover, they wouldn't have recourse in the instances in which their daughters become knocked up by the high school football quarterback.

    Posted by kirquaker at 11/14/2009 @ 02:28am

32. are antisocial and gunslinger against contraception?

    Posted by kirquaker at 11/14/2009 @ 02:32am

33. are antisocial and gunslinger against contraception? Posted by kirquaker at 11/14/2009 @ 02:32am |

    Can't speak for slinger, but Anti has claimed that he is not against birth control...and for that he should be commended.

    Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 07:10am

34. American democracy was lost when the Dems, especially Emanuel, prostituted themselves and got so many Blue dogs in their party.

    Solution - first, remove Lieberman from any committee chair; second, read the 2008 Democratic platform; third, listen to Bernie Sanders.

    Posted by LarryB at 11/14/2009 @ 09:27am

35. Sorry, antisocialist, but marriage is not a panacea for sexual problems. I know several married women who got STDs from their husbands, and yes, lots of married women get abortions.

    Posted by ktrig at 11/13/2009 @ 11:00pm

    You live in a different world than I do.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 09:39am

36. "STDS never occur in marriage where couples honor their marriage vows. And abortion in marriage is highly unlikely"

    and if they don't honor their vows? and abortion is technically just as likely in marriage, as out of marriage.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2009 @ 10:48am

37. "You live in a different world than I do"

    we all know that anti. we live in reality. you live in heaven (or hell).

    Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2009 @ 10:56am

38. Everyone lives in a different world than you do. Freedom lovers don't come in a box.Freedom lovers don't say people are bad because they worship a book with a different name on it.Freedom lovers don't say let's go kill over therte or over there because "those" people worship in a different way. Let's save money by having our army in 100 different countries. That way we can nation build cheaper than going there when we really need to be there.Let's tell the heathens how do things.If things don't go well we can say they are radical extremists.On the other hand if we want to help our neighbors afford decent health care,we are socialists or some other term.If we want to hold people accountable in any way other than religion than it is wrong.Go to the theocratic regimes in the areas we are nation building in.They think like you Santi.They look down upon others,you would feel right at home.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/14/2009 @ 10:57am

39. It really saddens me to see that the only pro-life poster on this thread is a vitriolic troll. There is a perfectly valid reason for being pro-life, and that is the fact that we simply don't know when life begins, making the whole issue of abortion a moral grey area. At the same time, genuinely pro-life individuals are concerned with preventing abortions however they can, primarily by preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Antisocial over here is a special type of "pro-lifer", the kind that unfortunately many view as the representative of the pro-life movement. The truth is, he'd much rather scream and blame than try to help the unborn children, say by adopting children to open up room for more babies, or giving money to orphanages, or subsidizing birth control pills.

    The real problem with this issue is that the dividing line between government health insurance and private insurance is about to get very blurry, making the previous compromise untenable. Subsidizing health care is a moral necessity, especially in a nation that wants to call itself Christian, so obviously the previous compromise needs to be reworked. I would like to offer what I think would be a true compromise on the issue.

    Most Americans are not comfortable with abortion. They don't like the fact that we can't know for sure if what we are killing is a human being. They don't want it banned, but they don't like it. Most think birth control is acceptable. Therefore, why don't we tell private insurance companies they can't cover abortions, but HAVE to cover birth control, condoms, and have more money spent on real sex ed, not the abstinence garbage that we have now. That way women wouldn't need abortions in the first place. The right gets something, and the left does too.

    Posted by joe_nobody at 11/14/2009 @ 1:41pm

40. TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY ISN'T DEMOCRACY

    Tyranny of the minority is what is delaying, sabotaging and killing the most important agenda Obama campaigned on and won. It is happening on two fronts: within the Democratic Party where a tiny minority (the so-called "blue dogs") is dictating the content and pace of the agenda, and between Parties in Congress with the Republican Party determined to delay and kill any Democratic legislative and appointment initiatives. This is not the way democracy is supposed to work. It doesn't work that way in any Western democracy, and it never worked that way whenever Republicans are in power. Think of it. During the Reagan time, a fundamental restructuring of government took place with zealot speed. Reagan neglected the poor while he drove up the deficit as he catered mostly for the rich. The same thing happened during the time of George W. Bush. Bush gave an unprecedented allocation of fund to the rich through his tax legislation and policies, sent the country to an unnecessary war in Iraq, squandered the treasury fighting it, ruled like a tin-pot dictator--and members of his Party virtually all went for the ride. In both Reagan and Bush years, you didn't see the "Tea Baggers," the anti-deficit hawks, and the Glenn Becks, Sarah Palins and Rush Limbaughs of this world howling in dissent and destructive opposition? There were no chants of dictatorship from them. And no one wanted to secede from America. That is hypocrisy, not democracy. Dr. Sam

    Posted by drsam8 at 11/14/2009 @ 1:44pm

41. Posted by joe_nobody at 11/14/2009 @ 1:41pm

    That's right, come on this blog and attack me without knowing anything about what I have done or our ministry to help families and children.

    One of our families has been foster parents to over 1000 children and adopted 8 of them.

    Posted by antisocialist at 11/14/2009 @ 5:02pm

42. Congratulations for doing something right. How many were Muslim kids?If any were, just think, they could be moderates and fit on the head of a pin. Your problem is that everything you do keeps your nose just above the water.Spiritualism is great but unfortunately you branch off into areas that don't match up.Your unabashed support of war is extremely disappointing.Do these foster parents teach that to the children. I would think not. They probably work with them on the family and togetherness. Try it yourself at age 60 it's not too late for you.

    Posted by whatozz at 11/14/2009 @ 6:05pm

43. I'm just praying that this is what's needed to kill this bill.

    Posted by nkurland at 11/15/2009 @ 2:02pm

44. Posted by joe_nobody at 11/14/2009 @ 1:41pm

    I can respect your sentiments but not your solution. Why should private insurers be barred from covering abortion? That intervenes not only in a woman's right to control her own body and health care but in that sacred right of contract that capitalists are so fond of.

    The debate over when a fetus becomes a human being can only reasonably start at some point in the second trimester. Religion, not science, is the source of any argument that states the fetus is a full-fledged human from conception or within the first trimester.

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/16/2009 @ 2:27pm

45. But we all know where you are coming from. You don't believe in our national security because you hate America. You would like nothing more than to see this country go down. but then again, where would you go to post your unpatriotic rants. A dictator wiould hunt you down and kill you. You should pray to whatever supreme being you believe even if it's some marijuana plant, that you live in this country.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/13/2009 @ 10:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    And the price of German purity was 7,000,000 lives. We are headed that way daily.

    Posted by LOrion at 11/13/2009 @ 11:58am | ignore this person | warn this person

    I'm hoping against hope that neither of you seriously believe in what you're posting here. I'd like to just believe that you were feeling lonely, so you posted flamebait somewhere to get some attention.

    I'm scared to death by the possibility that you really believe your own statements.

    LOrion, if you really care about any of those millions of lives, don't cheapen them by using them in a crude allegory.

    gunslinger, people are not stereotypes. darla loves her country just as much as you do, she just doesn't seem to agree with you on most political issues. The bile you just spewed was unjustified and wrong, and if you honestly believe it, you need to broaden your horizens in life.

    Why does a guy who's probably HALF YOUR AGE have to explain this to you two?

    Posted by badreligionlover at 11/16/2009 @ 8:52pm

46. Posted by joe_nobody at 11/14/2009 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Come by these threads more often, joe, we need more people like you posting here. And less of Anti, Happy, et al.

    Still, in response to your actual proposed solution, I pretty much echo cka2nd's sentiments. Like it or not, abortions happen whether legal or not, and illegal abortions are much more likely to kill the mother as well as the fetus, hence why I support their continued legalization.

    Posted by badreligionlover at 11/16/2009 @ 8:58pm