Obama hints: Stupak Amendment will have to go; Update: Trust in Pelosi, says Planned Parenthood chief

posted at 6:28 pm on November 9, 2009 by Allahpundit

Alternate headline: “Rabidly pro-choice president sides with pro-choicers.”

TAPPER: Here’s a question a lot of Senate Democrats want to know. You said, when you gave your joint address to Congress, that under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. This amendment passed Saturday night which not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public option, but also prohibits women who receive subsidies from taking out plans that — that provide abortion coverage. Does that meet the promise that you set out or does it over reach, does it go too far?

OBAMA: You know, 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. And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you’re happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it’s not going to change. So, you know, this is going to be a complex set of negotiations. I’m confident that we can actually arrive at this place where neither side feels that it’s being betrayed. But it’s going to take some time.

TAPPER: Do you think that amendment is status quo or does it lean a little bit in one direction or the other?

OBAMA: I think that there are strong feelings on both sides. And what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo. And that’s the goal. The goal here is to make sure that people who have health insurance have greater stability and security, people who don’t have health insurance get the ability to buy it affordably and that we’re driving down costs.

Lest you think I’m reading too much into that, note that ABC is reading it the same way. Ed noted earlier that a war is brewing between pro-life Blue Dogs and pro-choice liberals over the final bill, but does anyone seriously believe the pro-lifers will hold their ground and torpedo it if the abortion language is stripped out? For all the press he got in anti-abortion circles, Stupak himself was prepared to vote for this crap sandwich without the ban on funding abortion; all he wanted was a floor vote, which means all it cost Pelosi to pass the bill was some ephemeral unpleasantness in the caucus room. The language will be duly dumped in conference committee and Stupak et al. will crumble under the weight of media heavy-breathing about how Democrats are now closer than they’ve ever been to passing the glorious utopian Great Society boondoggle of their dreams. They’ll fold like a two-dollar chair.

The excerpt is from Tapper’s interview with Obama, as you might have guessed. In case you’re wondering what the biggest lie told was, my nomination is this:

Obama said Democrat Bill Owens victory in the special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district, the one bright spot for the president’s party last Tuesday, “sent an important signal.”

“Bill Owens, the Democrat in a traditionally Republican district, a district that had been Republican for 100 years, did not shy away from saying he supported health insurance reform, that he supported the Recovery Act and the progress that we have made there and ended up winning,” Obama said.

Exit question: Um, what?

Update: Via Greg Hengler, the head of Planned Parenthood knows who the strong horse and the weak horse here are.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

This guy makes impeached President Clinton sound like Honest Abe.

Hening on November 9, 2009 at 7:34 PM

trust in Nancy, you say? Oh well, there you have it. I’m sold.

//s

ted c on November 9, 2009 at 7:36 PM

The Double-talker-in-Chief:

And what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo

That is the most illogical construct of language that I have ever tried to unravel. If ObaMao does not want to change the status quo, then the whole exercise of destroying our health-care delivery and health-insurance is moot. Congress can now go home. The legislation is trash now and from its inception.

onlineanalyst on November 9, 2009 at 7:37 PM

They’ve been relentlessly gerrymandering that district for years. The Democrats made a play for a conservative stronghold, and the RNC and the NRCC snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

alliebobbitt on November 9, 2009 at 7:07 PM

Thanks

So it is a distortion

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2009 at 7:40 PM

Update: Via Greg Hengler, the head of Planned Parenthood knows who the strong horse and the weak horse here are.

And Chris Matthews, as always, is the horse’s ass.

Kensington on November 9, 2009 at 7:41 PM

From Newsbusters:

Time’s Newton-Small Focuses On Cao Vote, Glosses Over 15.1% of Dems Defecting On PelosiCare
By Ken Shepherd | November 9, 2009 – 12:06

Saturday’s vote to pass ObamaCare out of the House of Representatives was a nail-biter, passing with two votes to spare over the bare-minimum majority of 218. The final vote, 220-215, had 39 Democrats join all but one Republican in voting no.

Yet while a solid 15 percent of the Democratic caucus bucked the party leadership with their no votes, the media have latched on to the sole Republican defector: pro-life, social conservative Catholic Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.), who has a tenuous hold in a solidly liberal Democratic district once held by the corrupt William Jefferson.

Time’s Jay Newton-Small made much of the solitary Republican defection in Swampland blog post on Saturday, painting it as an abject failure of House GOP Whip Eric Cantor’s “promise” to keep the opposition unified. Newton-Small had to add an update later clarifying Cantor made no such explicit promise:

CWforFreedom on November 9, 2009 at 7:44 PM

Hanging the Blue Dogs out to dry on a Monday isn’t the brightest move by Obama, since that’s four days for them all to be questioned about how they’ll vote on a final bill if the abortion funding returns. But given Barack’s problems with constitutional comprehension in the past, my guess is he’s forgotten about the need for a post-conference committee vote and thinks he’s already in the health care Super Bowl.

jon1979 on November 9, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Does the health care bill cover boob jobs, and nose jobs? I expect not because these are elective surgeries. Abortion is also an elective surgery. It too should not be covered by any health care plan.

Dasher on November 9, 2009 at 7:46 PM

I wont trust in Pelosi until I can pee on her grave…

bluelightbrigade on November 9, 2009 at 7:48 PM

Dasher on November 9, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Or sex changes? If so, crr6 && Dark Star are def in

bluelightbrigade on November 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM

At first glance I was in the camp of all Republicans voting present, But Boehner and Cantor are correct. You don’t play politics with Life. The Democrats did and now they are the ones who are tearing each other apart. If the Republicans had just voted present on the admendment then the liberals and Media would be pounding away at the Republicans. I think Boehner and the Republicans (minus Cao) made the right choice!! Tip of the hat to the House Republicans! Now I will enjoy my popcorn while the Liberals go after each other.

PS. MMMM MMMM MMM

Dire Straits on November 9, 2009 at 7:50 PM

There’s one, and only one, way to kill this for good. Simple advertise broadly to the electorate what their premiums were pre-Obamacare (stout, but doable) and will be post-Obamacare (2-3x pre-Obamacare). The argument needs to be framed in exact terms using the language passed by the House. It’s no secret that the public isn’t on board with NHC in an academic sense, but they’ll really revolt when they know how much this is going to cost them in real dollars and exact terms.

volnation on November 9, 2009 at 6:48 PM

Absolutely! Make the argument in dollar and cents form so that the public will see what Obamacare does to their wallets.

onlineanalyst on November 9, 2009 at 7:50 PM

Exit question: How long will they be able to continue lying?

GarandFan on November 9, 2009 at 7:25 PM

As long as they are there. Does anyone actually think that they would suddenly start being honest?
The whiplash would be devastating.

Itchee Dryback on November 9, 2009 at 7:50 PM

but my Dem Congressman (Perriello)is the darling of the Dem Virginia blogs today. even though none of them support a right-to-life position & even though these bloggers describe themselves as “progressive” (read: liberal), they think Perriello is a prince for keeping a promise to not vote for fed funding of abortion. Then, of course, Perriello voted for Pelosi’s bill.

what would these stupid Va. Progressive bloggers say about dumbsh*T Owens (NY-23) who violated a promise not to vote for the bill at all?

kelley in virginia on November 9, 2009 at 7:50 PM

Does anyone else believe the thought of women actually filing for insurance coverage for an abortion disturbing or is it just me? I have NEVER seen that as a covered procedure on my insurance and would have questioned why a company would cover it.

truetexan on November 9, 2009 at 7:50 PM

truetexan: covered as a DNC.

kelley in virginia on November 9, 2009 at 7:52 PM

From Obama’s speech at Notre Dame

Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”

Women with unintended pregnancies are guarenteed full health care during their pregnancies under the hc reform. Women who have been raped or are in medical danger will still be covered for their abortions under the government approved plans.

And what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo

Not changing the status quo= trying to use the same old excuses for abortion. Cant be done. See above.

canditaylor68 on November 9, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Is it too much to anticipate that some Democrats are going to turn as virulently anti-Obama as moi? Oh, the vapors!

Marcus on November 9, 2009 at 7:54 PM

kelley in virginia on November 9, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Ah. But still, I have never known anyone to have a DNC for this reason. That just brings it to a new low in my book.

truetexan on November 9, 2009 at 7:54 PM

canditaylor68 on November 9, 2009 at 7:52 PM

Remember, Obama’s words have expiration dates.

truetexan on November 9, 2009 at 7:57 PM

Did the CBO/anyone calculate how many abortions they expect and how much will it cost? If this passes, Obamacare will be broke in the first year.

TN Mom on November 9, 2009 at 7:58 PM

Does anyone else believe the thought of women actually filing for insurance coverage for an abortion disturbing or is it just me? I have NEVER seen that as a covered procedure on my insurance and would have questioned why a company would cover it.

truetexan on November 9, 2009 at 7:50 PM

They will just change your insurance plan. The house bill (that passed saturday night) says ALL insurance plans must be approved by the government.

TN Mom on November 9, 2009 at 8:01 PM

The goal here is to make sure that people who have health insurance have greater stability and security, people who don’t have health insurance get the ability to buy it affordably and that we’re driving down costs.

The bolded section is a blatant lie. With a government insurance program that demands that certain mandates be covered by private insurance as well, the “stability” goes out the window because prices for premiums will rise, affecting whether an individual or a company can afford to continue with their program of choice.

What really affects affordability is the ability to choose insurance packages that meet the needs of the consumer, the tearing down of the walls that prevent purchase across state lines, and the ability for businesses or people with pre-existing conditions to form purchasing pools.

This clown wants to provide “free” insurance to people who don’t want to spend their own money or who pay no taxes.

onlineanalyst on November 9, 2009 at 8:03 PM

TN Mom on November 9, 2009 at 8:01 PM

Yes, looking so forward to the government making my decisions for me. /sarc(if that is really necessary)

truetexan on November 9, 2009 at 8:04 PM

So, by paying my taxes, I will be paying for abortions?

That might just be the last straw.

justltl on November 9, 2009 at 8:04 PM

justltl on November 9, 2009 at 8:04 PM

You are correct. We already do with all of the funding to Planned Parenthood. They just say the $$ is for education, not abortions. Sickening isn’t it?

truetexan on November 9, 2009 at 8:06 PM

The GOP was PWNED yet again. Will the EVER freaking learn that you cannot trust a Democrats? Fool me once shame on you. Fool me 17,827 times, shame on me.

angryed on November 9, 2009 at 8:13 PM

Yes, but the Catholic Church is not an American institution. Like it or not, the bishops might not really care who pays how much for health care or whether taxes are “too high” or not. They probably don’t even care what goes into a health care insurance plan, as long as people are not forced to pay for things that are intrinsically evil, such as abortions. They aren’t always right on top of things, and I often disagree with them, but if they get screwed on this they will “come after” the politicians who did it and do whatever they can to see to it that they are defeated at the polls next time around. Try to get elected President without at least 45% Catholic vote.

jdp629 on November 9, 2009 at 7:22 PM

Wait a minute. Everyone in America knew this was a ploy to get the bill passed EXCEPT these guys. WOW!

donh525 on November 9, 2009 at 7:27 PM

Not everyone. I didn’t. Neither did the National Right to Life organization, and they are usually fairly politically savvy. So let’s just wait a while before we assume that President shout-out and his side-kick Nancy are going to get their way on this. There is a long way to go on this, and we’re better off having the amendment in the house bill and 64 democrats voting for it than the other way around, IMhO, anyway.

jdp629 on November 9, 2009 at 8:15 PM

Does anyone else believe the thought of women actually filing for insurance coverage for an abortion disturbing or is it just me? I have NEVER seen that as a covered procedure on my insurance and would have questioned why a company would cover it.

truetexan on November 9, 2009 at 7:50 PM

Here’s the irony: Most insurance doesn’t cover infertility. But now they will have to cover abortions. So no money to help create babies, but plenty ‘o money to kill babies.

This is not a nice country anymore.

angryed on November 9, 2009 at 8:15 PM

There is something every republican needs to understand. Pelosicare passed only because of republicans, and specifically John Boehner. If pelosicare would have passed anyway, don’t you think she would have passed it without Stupak? The fact of the matter was Pelosicare was dead without Stupak. And Stupak was dead if republicans did not vote for it. Every republican here should be deeply pissed off at their republican representavives in the house who voted for this. They are treachorous Judases, who have bestowed upon you and I, and our children and their children for generation to come this albatross of government statism. Anyone who thinks these were good men who made a bad decision are naive or just plain stupid. They stabbed us in the back! That’s it plain and simple.

paulsur on November 9, 2009 at 8:16 PM

Does anyone else believe the thought of women actually filing for insurance coverage for an abortion disturbing or is it just me? I have NEVER seen that as a covered procedure on my insurance and would have questioned why a company would cover it.

truetexan on November 9, 2009 at 7:50 PM

My standard Keystone HMO ( The Blue Cross of Eastern PA HMO) has elective abortions in the standard, preprinted contract.

Wethal on November 9, 2009 at 8:17 PM

paulsur on November 9, 2009 at 8:16 PM

Republicans as usual brought a water pistol to a knife fight while Dems brought an F-16. It’s been that way for the past 20 years. Which is why Republicans will continue to lose, even when they win elections.

angryed on November 9, 2009 at 8:18 PM

Sickening isn’t it?

truetexan on November 9, 2009 at 8:06 PM

Truly.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

justltl on November 9, 2009 at 8:20 PM

Im looking forward to this getting rammed through.

True_King on November 9, 2009 at 8:20 PM

Republicans as usual brought a water pistol to a knife fight while Dems brought an F-16. It’s been that way for the past 20 years. Which is why Republicans will continue to lose, even when they win elections.

angryed on November 9, 2009 at 8:18 PM

I think you missed the whole point. The republicans didnt bring a water pistol, they brought the silver platter. This bill could not have been passed without their complicit help.

paulsur on November 9, 2009 at 8:25 PM

Does anyone else believe the thought of women actually filing for insurance coverage for an abortion disturbing or is it just me? I have NEVER seen that as a covered procedure on my insurance and would have questioned why a company would cover it.

It about they only specialized procedure you will be able to get with any reasonable timliness after this bill goes into effect. Thank you for that republicans.

paulsur on November 9, 2009 at 8:29 PM

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”

If one thinks about it, the abuses and offenses of the current government make those inflicted upon the Founding Fathers seem trivial by comparison.
I am pretty sure that they would comprehend, but be completely sickened by, our passivity.

justltl on November 9, 2009 at 8:30 PM

I wonder if forced abortions for “extremists” will be included.

Attended tea party and pregnant? Not for long you’re not you Nazi.

Own a gun and pregnant? Sorry, too dangerous to allow a child into that household.

Registered as a Republican and pregnant? Please follow me to the operating room. We can’t have a racist giving birth, now can we?

angryed on November 9, 2009 at 8:37 PM

Pelosi: We need some help from you John.
Boehner: Anything for you darling.
Pelosi: We need a way to get our conservative democrats to vote for my bill, since you and your republicans can’t becuase if you do your contiuency will bring back hangings.
Boehner: I got just the thing for you babe; How’s about we have Stupak wrtite an amendment that enforces the Hyde legislation on your pelosicare? This way, you blue dongs can vite for the bill, I can whip my republicans to vote for the stupak amendment, and that will hoodwink an unsuspecting public into thinking we were voting to save lives! How “conservative” of us!
Pelosi: Thanks John, you are a stud!

paulsur on November 9, 2009 at 8:37 PM

paulsur – Did you miss the Stupak video where he told his constituents he would vote for the bill if his amendment was defeated as long as it got an up-or-down vote? Was he lying? It’s really hard to imagine how you know, for certain, the bill would have died if the Republicans had all voted “present” on Stupak.

jdp629 on November 9, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Regardless of the tactical value, can one imagine the fallout were the Republicans to have voted against an amendment to prohibit a plan from covering abortions?

Good lord, it would have been headlines for months.

Furthermore, not only would it have been spineless to not vote for what is actually right rather than politically expedient, it would have been politically suicidal.
The bill would have passed anyway, albeit with a little less cover for the Blue Dogs.

The problem lies with the Democrats, not with the feeble Republicans.

justltl on November 9, 2009 at 8:46 PM

It’s really hard to imagine how you know, for certain, the bill would have died if the Republicans had all voted “present” on Stupak.

All I need to know is that Nacy needed it. Nancy Pro-abortion Pelosi needed it! If she didnt need it, do you think she would have ever let it get in there? Isnt that the point or am I missing something key here?

paulsur on November 9, 2009 at 8:50 PM

paulsur – Did you miss the Stupak video where he told his constituents he would vote for the bill if his amendment was defeated as long as it got an up-or-down vote? Was he lying? It’s really hard to imagine how you know, for certain, the bill would have died if the Republicans had all voted “present” on Stupak.

jdp629 on November 9, 2009 at 8:45 PM

Plus all the talking heads are upset about the Abortion Issue. So this keeps the Liberals having to explain how they will get it back in the bill to their people. Plus now Democrats can’t hide behind the Hyde Admendment like they have been doing. You gotta love this Demo civil war going on.

Dire Straits on November 9, 2009 at 8:52 PM

This would have been the headline news and talking point for months:

“REPUBLICANS CYNICALLY VOTE DOWN AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT ABORTIONS IN ATTEMPT TO SABOTAGE HEALTH REFORM BILL!”
“Bill narrowly passes anyway, thanks to handful of courageous Blue Dog democrats.”

justltl on November 9, 2009 at 8:56 PM

justltl on November 9, 2009 at 8:56 PM

= 1. Gotta agree.

Dire Straits on November 9, 2009 at 8:57 PM

Ooh! The Steelers are on!
Almost forgot.
Saving the world from the Evil Democrats will have to wait.

justltl on November 9, 2009 at 8:58 PM

=1

YES!!!

justltl on November 9, 2009 at 8:59 PM

I think you missed the whole point. The republicans didnt bring a water pistol, they brought the silver platter. This bill could not have been passed without their complicit help.

paulsur on November 9, 2009 at 8:25 PM

That’s just unfair. The Republicans were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t on this one. How do you NOT vote to prevent taxpayers funds for abortion? IF the Democrats called their bluff and passed it without the amendment, Conservatives would be screaming their heads off and again accuse the GOP of being weak kneed.

katablog.com on November 9, 2009 at 9:12 PM

That’s just unfair. The Republicans were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t on this one. How do you NOT vote to prevent taxpayers funds for abortion? IF the Democrats called their bluff and passed it without the amendment, Conservatives would be screaming their heads off and again accuse the GOP of being weak kneed.

They are going to pull the language out in committee anyway. The republicans knew that, you know that, i know that. What is unfair about knowing that if they voted for this amendment that healthcare was going to pass. And if they voted present on it, they put it on someone else. Especially given the fact that if it were not really needed, then nancy would never have allowed it in her bill in the first place.

paulsur on November 9, 2009 at 9:22 PM

paulsur – Explain to me like I’m a five year-old why pro life Democrats would have voted to kill the bill if Republicans had all voted “present” on Stupak, but those same Democrats will vote to pass the bill that comes out committee if it doesn’t include Stupak? And “political pressure” doesn’t really count for much, because if political pressure could have swayed the vote, it would have done so the first time around.

jdp629 on November 9, 2009 at 9:45 PM

When it comes to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid….I have never had the honor of meeting more forthright, honest, decent, truthful people in my life.

There now. We’re both liars Obama!

capejasmine on November 9, 2009 at 10:12 PM

I think it should be pointed out that even if the Republicans voted present and the Stupak Amendment sunk that would not have changed a thing and it still would have passed.

I think the House Repubs did the right thing by staying true to principle. Mr. Morrissey pointed out in the other thread on this subject the Republicans had a long-term plan in mind, something I consider wise.

Such as it now Bart Stupak and his coalition are stuck in a situation where they must vote no against the bill when the amendment. If they don’t their legislative careers are over. The Republicans drew the line in the sand, now the Stupak Coalition must decide if they will stick to principle or flip over and burn in ’10 for it.

Shogun144 on November 9, 2009 at 10:21 PM

Explain to me like I’m a five year-old why pro life Democrats would have voted to kill the bill if Republicans had all voted “present” on Stupak, but those same Democrats will vote to pass the bill that comes out committee if it doesn’t include Stupak? And “political pressure” doesn’t really count for much, because if political pressure could have swayed the vote, it would have done so the first time around.

I am not going to treat anyone like a five year old, but it was obvious that Pelosi did not have the votes needed in the house to pass this thing without the Stupak amendment. Because if she did have the votes we would never have done the Stupak dance in the first place.

paulsur on November 9, 2009 at 10:21 PM

Excuse me for double posting:

This:

Such as it now Bart Stupak and his coalition are stuck in a situation where they must vote no against the bill when the amendment

Should be:

Such as it now Bart Stupak and his coalition are stuck in a situation where they must vote no against the bill when the amendment is stripped.

Shogun144 on November 9, 2009 at 10:22 PM

I think it should be pointed out that even if the Republicans voted present and the Stupak Amendment sunk that would not have changed a thing and it still would have passed

If this were truly the case, then Nancy would have never done the stupak dance in the first place, there wasnt a need to under your assertion.

paulsur on November 9, 2009 at 10:22 PM

Paulsur,

I understand how you feel, however…

Bart Stupak himself said in a townhall meeting in Cheboygan about two weeks ago that all he wanted was Pelosi to allow the bill to be brought to a vote on the House floor. After that, it did matter whether passed or failed for he was planning to vote for it anyway.

Shogun144 on November 9, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Pelosi: I am going to let those silly little republicans have their vote on that stupid stupak thingy even though have enough votes now to pass my legislation. This way I am seen as being fair. I am such a great speaker of the House, dont you think?
Imagine if I simply just decided not to allow this stupak thingy, and twisted arms and got my way, and I passed my bill. Just imagine the bad things the National Right to Life groups would say about me.
I would be so ashamed!

paulsur on November 9, 2009 at 10:26 PM

Well, paulsur, that’s what Stupak said. Give me a vote on my amendment and I’ll abide by it up or down. If you don’t give me a vote on the amendment, 40 Dems vote against the bill. And that’s the key distinction I think you’re missing. You say that Pelosi’s issue was “Either the Stupak amendment passes or the bill doesn’t.” I think the issue really was: “Either I give them an up-and-down vote on this amendment or the bill doesn’t pass.” There is a HUGE difference between those issues. We have Bart Stupak’s own statement to his constituents to vouch for the latter, we have only republican blog posters to suggest the former.

jdp629 on November 9, 2009 at 10:37 PM

To all you clowns who trusted Owens and what he said before the election, and then voted for him, send Nancy and Harry and Steny a note and see if the new “health care” legislation covers the lubricant you may want to purchase from here on out.

dissent555 on November 9, 2009 at 10:43 PM

On the bright side of this debate once Gov’t run, gov’t rationed, taxpayer paid for (until they can’t anymore)healthcare passes and all records become electronic so as to save money and time when the death panels need to check how worthy one is for that life sustaining surgery,

Any fifth grader with a computer should be able to hack into the records and pull up future Democrap Presidential Candidates medical records and find out if, Bill Clintoon for instance, had the clap and a bent tool,

Pinnochio had nose surgery from too much coke use or which Dem women have had prior abortions!

That’s the plus of Obamacare

dhunter on November 9, 2009 at 10:44 PM

Okay I made my point enough times, it’s clear I am not going to change any minds. I would like to apologize if my childish inflamatory snit fit was so demeaning as to make anyone genuinely think i am such an a-hole as to think i was treating anyone or all of you as little children. Actually I am very suprised that I have been permitted to haunt these forums for so long. I am not going anywhere mind you, and I definitely won’t change my attitude, but an earlier post actually made me think a little and I almost feel like a jerk almost a little bit.

paulsur on November 9, 2009 at 10:45 PM

=1
YES!!!

justltl on November 9, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Should Be + 1. Good Posts!!!

Dire Straits on November 9, 2009 at 10:49 PM

I happen to think it will be cool to hack into Palin hating womens medical records and see how many are self loathers because they have had abortions.
This electronic medical records thingy, gov’t housed of course, is going to be a real plus to the New Media Bloggousphere, the National Enquirer, and investigative blackmailers nationwide.
Could even help solve the unemployment problem if enough people are able to pull up med records on celebs and news media presstitutes!

dhunter on November 9, 2009 at 10:51 PM

I would be so ashamed!

Those with no conscience feel no shame. Nancy Pelosi has long lost her ability to emphasize with anyone but herself.

wordsmithy2009 on November 9, 2009 at 11:39 PM

empathize even

wordsmithy2009 on November 9, 2009 at 11:39 PM

You’re wrong, Allah.

Stupak got his vote, and won. If his Amendment is reversed without a vote, then he will be back in the position of “not having a vote”.

If he folds, no pro-life group will defend him, and most to all of them will condemn him.

Would the pro-choice Democrats fold like a cheap tent? Yes. They’re more left wing, and therefore more interested in government run health care.

The pro-life Democrats are the ones least likely to desperately want government run health care, and so the ones least likely to fold.

You’re wrong, just like you were wrong when you said the Republicans should have voted “Present”. If it comes back from Reconciliation with abortion funding back in, it will lose.

Greg Q on November 10, 2009 at 2:30 AM

There are two lies in that sentence, and the first one is that the congressional district Owens won has been a GOP seat “for one hundred years”. More like sixteen years, since Mike McNulty, a Democrat, lost the seat and was replaced first by Woody Boehlert and then McHugh.

MTF on November 10, 2009 at 9:33 AM

You’re wrong, just like you were wrong when you said the Republicans should have voted “Present”. If it comes back from Reconciliation with abortion funding back in, it will lose.

Greg Q on November 10, 2009

I hope you’re right but you appear to have far more faith in pro life Democrats than I have. They are Democrats uber alles and will ultimately do as their leaders tell them in sufficient numbers to win.

SKYFOX on November 10, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Comment pages: 1 2