Hoyer: We could totally draft an anti-abortion bill that will get considered … by Democrats

posted at 12:15 pm on March 5, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

How desperate have Democrats become in their attempt to convince pro-life House moderates to support the Senate version of ObamaCare?  Steny Hoyer suggested yesterday that Democrats could produce a bill that would “relate” to Rep. Bart Stupak’s opposition to the bill over abortion funding.  Chances of it passing in a Congress dominated by Democrats?  Well …

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday that lawmakers could draft separate pieces of legislation with abortion language to earn the support of anti-abortion rights Democrats on healthcare reform legislation.

Stupak has said that 12 lawmakers who previously backed healthcare reform legislation in the House could withhold their support if the Senate’s abortion language, which was largely upheld by the president’s fixes, remains unchanged. Twelve defections would likely prevent the healthcare overhaul from passing the House.

“Separate pieces of legislation could be passed that would relate to that,” Hoyer told reporters after a meeting with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) “That’s a possibility. I talked to Mr. Stupak today, and I’m going to be talking to him next week and he indicated he wanted to have some discussions with people. And I will do that.”

There are only two reasons why Bart Stupak would agree to that strategy.  One would be that Stupak is a complete idiot.  The other … all right, the other would also have to be that Stupak is a complete idiot.

How exactly would this work?  Nancy Pelosi would have to allow it to come to a floor vote — the same Nancy Pelosi who only allowed Stupak a vote on the amendment in the first place because she would have lost the ObamaCare vote without it.  Is Nancy Pelosi a die-hard abortion opponent, or someone who wants to see federal funding of abortion as part of a government overhaul and takeover of the health-care system? (Oh, let’s not always see the same hands.)  Then, assuming that the Senate would pass it when they just got done stripping out the Stupak language three months ago, the bill would have to go to President Barack Obama for his signature.  That would be the same Barack Obama who said this on the campaign trail in 2007:

In other words, a separate bill with the Stupak language has about as much chance of passage as we do of seeing Obama suddenly transform into a supply-sider overnight. Stupak would have every right to be offended at this insult to his intelligence — and to ours as well.

Update: Steven Ertelt at LifeNews notes my skepticism.  Unfortunately, Stupak sounds a little less skeptical.


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

anti-abortion rights

Just noting the use of the term

jacrews on March 5, 2010 at 12:19 PM

House passes Senate version. ObaMao signs it. I have been saying this since the MA race.

mwdiver on March 5, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Could it be that Abortion is just a convenient excuse for not supporting that POS known as Obowmaocare?

Chip on March 5, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Conrad boldly exclaims reconciliation is impossible. Hoyer insists it’s still possible. Pelosi says she has the votes. Stupak says they don’t.

It’s gone from circus to full-blown schizophrenia.

John the Libertarian on March 5, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Wait…so the idea is to craft a separate bill which will nullify an existing provision in the current bill, instead of simply removing the provision from the current bill right now?

It’s noon somewhere in the world, right, because the scotch is calling to me like a Siren.

Bishop on March 5, 2010 at 12:20 PM

Now here’s an opportunity to punk the Dems again.

Get Stupak to agree to an anti-abortion bill, with the stipulation that it has to become law before Stupak and Co. vote yes on ObamaCare.

Once a federal anti-abortion bill is law, they renege on the deal.

Oh Baby. (literally and figuratively)

BobMbx on March 5, 2010 at 12:21 PM

So ObamaCare does fund abortions, right Steny?

d1carter on March 5, 2010 at 12:21 PM

I used to think this Congress was a legislative Death Star without an off switch.

Now I realize that it is a legislative Chinese fire drill.

Fallen Sparrow on March 5, 2010 at 12:22 PM

So ObamaCare does fund abortions, right Steny?

d1carter on March 5, 2010 at 12:21 PM

Right, but it doesn’t “fund-fund” them, so it’s all cool. /whoopi

Fallen Sparrow on March 5, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Not only would Empress Pelosi have to allow it to come to a vote, so would Dingy Harry. And then it would have to be signed by Dear Liar. The chances of that happening are about the same as me hooking up with Jessica Alba.

rbj on March 5, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Chances of it passing in a Congress dominated by Democrats? Well …

And not being vetoed by Obama, assuming it did manage to get past both houses.
Remember, Obama voted against giving protection to babies that were born alive after botched abortion attempts.
He’s also voted against banning partial birth abortions.

If this comes out as a single issue bill, it will be vetoed.

MarkTheGreat on March 5, 2010 at 12:24 PM

I listened to Stupak on Greta last night.

He. Is. Ready. To. Cave.

The only reason he’s pretending to stand tough on this issue is he likes being the center of attention and the media exposure. When the camera’s disappear and the questions stop, he will cave.

Knucklehead on March 5, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Stupak was on Greta last night, and offered 8 different examples of the type of language he would accept. I can’t help being suspicious he is posturing, because Ben Nelson is one of my senators and has been doing this stuff for years.

a capella on March 5, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Get the Chex Mix. The Liars Olympics has started, and Democrats are about to break their old records. This ought to be good entertainment.

RBMN on March 5, 2010 at 12:25 PM

I’m no legal expert, but how are contradictory provisions of different laws resolved? I assume it is based on which was signed into law latest. So if the Stupak Law That Guarantees Life is signed first, it will be nullified once the Nelson Capitulation For a Few Million Bucks Act of 2009 is signed after it.

pedestrian on March 5, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Stupak and his group would still have to vote for the unchanged Senate version, and try to explain that vote. (”They were against abortion funding, then for it”?)

They can’t change the Senate version before the House votes on it, because Harry would have to get cloture again.

The House must go first and pass the unchanged Senate bill. The president has to sign it.

Then they can move on to other amending bills, with the Senate using reconcilation. Stupak and his group are trusting that a separate bill would actually be passed and they would not be stuck with their votes on the Senate bill.

Obama would be happy with the Senate bill, even with the Cornhusker Kickback, et al. All he wants is a bill, and the KC would be a minor issue for him in 2012. Obama won’t waste any political capital (if he has anyleft) on reconciliation, so it would be up to Reid to get it through the Senate with the GOP trying to stop him.

Wethal on March 5, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Knucklehead on March 5, 2010 at 12:24 PM

:) GMTA

a capella on March 5, 2010 at 12:27 PM

I think they will compromise with Stupak. I think they would pass it in order to usher in the socialist utopia that is Obamacare. They NEED to take over medicine now, they can add money to kill babies any time.

tommylotto on March 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Obama won’t waste any political capital (if he has anyleft) on reconciliation, so it would be up to Reid to get it through the Senate with the GOP trying to stop him.
Wethal on March 5, 2010 at 12:27 PM

Actually, the GOP probably wouldn’t try to stop a Stupak bill, but Harry would include it in reconciliation with other stuff the GOP would oppose.

Wethal on March 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Obama supports infanticide, and Hoyer thinks people are this stupid to believe this crap??? These are sick, sick people running our country.

Anyone that can end a life AFTER it’s born, is not a person with integrity. Yet, these are the beings we elect to pass our laws.

God we’re doomed as a nation.

capejasmine on March 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM

MarkTheGreat on March 5, 2010 at 12:24 PM

I don’t think so. I think Ogabe cares more about leaving some sort of legacy behind, and if he ends up having to kneecap pro-choicers, he’ll do it.

The only possible exception is his gorgon wife. I think she’s the reason why Senator Present took such a hardline stance on abortion in the first place and she might not let him do this.

Darth Executor on March 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM

pedestrian on March 5, 2010 at 12:26 PM

That might be the plan. It offers Stupak his fig leaf.

a capella on March 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Of course, because back room deals have worked so well.

Speakup on March 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM

Yeah, unless Stupack is a moron he is going to need a constitutional amendment or his precious bill will be steamrolled by a simple reconciliation bill providing a budget item to slaughter babies in the womb.

pedestrian on March 5, 2010 at 12:32 PM

If it goes into reconciliation, it expires in five years, anyway. Then the original Senate language would stand.

Wethal on March 5, 2010 at 12:33 PM

It’s almost as if Steny wants Nancy to fail and then take her place.

Almost.

Christien on March 5, 2010 at 12:34 PM

Before or after establishing a flat tax on the moon?

abobo on March 5, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Why draft a separate bill when there are laws already on the books? All Stupak wants is one or two sentences stating that all federal laws concerning abortion will be adhered to.

darwin on March 5, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Like Stupak is going to be willingly rolled, again?

HBowmanMD on March 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM

I just don’t know why the democrats try to hide anything anymore. Just scrap every item on the Obama agenda and come out with a single one page bill that will turn the US into a dictatorship, with all powers over everything granted to the dictator.

I mean that’s all this sneaky crap is anyway.

darwin on March 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM

Thanks again to Sen. Bunning, for warning all others what happens when you make a deal with Democrats–for something America wants.

Chris_Balsz on March 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM

If Stupak is stupid enough to go along with this, here is the result:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1N3cxhPVIxc/S5ES5tsFWbI/AAAAAAAAB_o/pbu12Qu0FDk/s1600-h/c4b_football.gif

This also applies to all House Dems who think Obama will push for reconciliation once they ratify and Obama gets to sign his Senate bill as the law of the land.

marybel on March 5, 2010 at 12:37 PM

The desperation is really showing. THEY DON’T HAVE THE VOTES!

GarandFan on March 5, 2010 at 12:39 PM

The Hyde amendment has to be renewed each year. No comfort there, although short term with pubbie majorities it is probably not an issue.

a capella on March 5, 2010 at 12:42 PM

First of all, all of the arguments here on this thread are MOOT to the fact that the legislation is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL to begin with. Why sit and argue about an unconstitutional law and what it entails? We as a people should be arguing that no matter what is in the bill as long as it mandates health coverage or forces us into mandartory gov’t healthcare after 5 years or if anything in our policy changes we get kicked to the gov’t plan at that point if before the 5 years, and then enforces it with criminal penalties that the whole thing is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and should be set aside on just that one reason alone. Its kind of like this scenario…you go home one day to find an officially embossed and sealed notification from the Government of Zimbabawe saying that you owe them $25,000 dollars in back taxes…are you gonna argue that you dont owe $25,000? Or are you gonna argue that you have no liability to Zimbabwe for a tax, as you have never lived or were a resident or done business there…think about the fine difference between the argument. In the first argument you are arguing that you dont owe 25k, but that you owe some amount..the second argument is saying “Dude I have no liabillity to owe you any amount” this scenario is similar to this HC bill. We are arguing about how much we owe (the details in the bill, taxes, abortion etc) instead of the fact that we have no constitutional liabillity to have this enforced on us as a citizen of America. We should be arguing about the fact that this bill is blatantly unconstitutionally instead of letting ourselves be led around by our noses, being distracted by the”details”. This is classic deception..here folks watch my left hand while the right hand does the trick! The left hand is distracting us to see the small details and not the larger picture that no matter whats in the bill that it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Quit being SHEEPLE and allowing yourself to be led around by the left hand while the right hand shreds your constitution before you wake up and its too late!. Peace out.

johng on March 5, 2010 at 12:42 PM

The left has been dreaming of state-run healthcare since the earliest days of American socialism under FDR. There is no way they will stop short of the promised land over the issue of abortion- Democrats have more problems with the well being of the snail darter than they do with murdering children.

I saw the Stupak interview on Greta last night. He will fold like a cheap tent once the sham of some sort of wording can be inserted into the process.

highhopes on March 5, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Why draft a separate bill when there are laws already on the books? All Stupak wants is one or two sentences stating that all federal laws concerning abortion will be adhered to.

darwin on March 5, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Because the House would then be amending the Senate bill.

Then that bill would have to go back to the Senate to be passed in its amended form by the Senate. Harry would need 60 votes for cloture. He got them before Scott Brown was elected. He won’t get them again.

Wethal on March 5, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Is it April 1 already?

angryed on March 5, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Democrats could produce a bill that would “relate” to Rep. Bart Stupak’s opposition to the bill over abortion funding

I have this Great Idea. Pelosi can introduce, and have the House vote on, the same bill introduced the last time, with marginal modifications, and ping pong it back to the Senate.

percysunshine on March 5, 2010 at 12:48 PM

The desperation is really showing. THEY DON’T HAVE THE VOTES!
GarandFan on March 5, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Man, I’m hoping you’re correct on that.

Chip on March 5, 2010 at 12:48 PM

The desperation is really showing. THEY DON’T HAVE THE VOTES!

GarandFan on March 5, 2010 at 12:39 PM

Agree. If they had the votes, it would already be law. How will we know if they get enough votes to pass it?

The vote will be taken immediately. As long as the vote is not called for, they don’t have the votes.

BobMbx on March 5, 2010 at 12:49 PM

johng on March 5, 2010 at 12:42 PM

That’s absolutely right. They have wasted an incredible amount of time on something that is at it’s very base is unconstitutional. I do not understand why that is not brought up over and over.
BTW Stupak is a typical MI dem who happens to have a big prolife constituency. He will flip.

ORconservative on March 5, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Because the House would then be amending the Senate bill.

Then that bill would have to go back to the Senate to be passed in its amended form by the Senate. Harry would need 60 votes for cloture. He got them before Scott Brown was elected. He won’t get them again.

Wethal on March 5, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Bingo! Give the man a cookie.

percysunshine on March 5, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Then that bill would have to go back to the Senate to be passed in its amended form by the Senate. Harry would need 60 votes for cloture. He got them before Scott Brown was elected. He won’t get them again.

Wethal on March 5, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Democracy’s a bitch, ain’t it?

BobMbx on March 5, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Surely Mr. Stupak has a brother, cousin, aunt, uncle, nephew, neighbor who can be appointed to a judgeship. Why go through the ugliness of more bills. Just find some open seats and be done with it.

angryed on March 5, 2010 at 12:51 PM

OT: What’s up with those J.D. Hayworth ads painting blue war paint on McCain’s face???

John the Libertarian on March 5, 2010 at 12:52 PM

Of course, there is always the other option of sending Obama a Republican bill and daring Obama to Veto it…

percysunshine on March 5, 2010 at 12:53 PM

OT: What’s up with those J.D. Hayworth ads painting blue war paint on McCain’s face???

He is runing for re-election in a state with a large NAI population.

If it was Louisiana, he would paint a fleur de lys on his face.

percysunshine on March 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM

We are arguing about how much we owe (the details in the bill, taxes, abortion etc) instead of the fact that we have no constitutional liabillity to have this enforced on us as a citizen of America. We should be arguing about the fact that this bill is blatantly unconstitutionally instead of letting ourselves be led around by our noses, being distracted by the”details”.

johng on March 5, 2010 at 12:42 PM

Apparently it is now a ‘living constitution’ which is that the constitution means precisely what the leftists want it to mean. No more and no less!

sharrukin on March 5, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Worst. Congress. Ever!

FireBlogger on March 5, 2010 at 1:09 PM

The thing that I have the most trouble getting my arms around is the fact that the Donks are trying to do something that effects all Americans and they are having so much trouble passing it. If it was so great then why are they having all this trouble? The main thing that I hope comes out of this is that folks wake up and see that there is definitely a group of folks who are definitely against the founding principles of this country and true freedom.

Dire Straits on March 5, 2010 at 1:10 PM

Knucklehead on March 5, 2010 at 12:24 PM

Stupak has a firm commitment against abortion it seems. I don’t figure him as a naive man.
But he is a Dim and therefore cannot be trusted.

Coin flip really.

FireBlogger on March 5, 2010 at 1:13 PM

Actually, the best case scenario for Dems politically is to put it to a vote and allow their members to vote as they are naturally inclined. Go down fighting. The hard core left will get their creds for fighting to the end and the Blue Dogs can get cred for voting against it.

I know the leftists are claiming that Blue Dogs can’t change their previous yes votes because the Reps are going to punish them anyway, but if I were a Blue Dog I’d sure as heck prefer to go into the election being able to say that I changed my vote because I listen to my constituents.

Nancy will be gone after November, why in the world do Blue Dogs owe her or the left anything?

obladioblada on March 5, 2010 at 1:16 PM

A couple of sessions ago here in Texas one our legislators slipped an amendment into a bill that stripped the entire language of the bill from the bill and it passed. I am beginning to see the brilliance in that move.

DanMan on March 5, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Bold prediction on the fate of the Stupak Amendment-Turned-Bill, assuming of course SanFranNan keeps her word on allowing it to make it to the floor – it does make it out of the House, but it doesn’t so much as see the light of day in the Senate. After all, they sacrificed the full-on public “option” in order to put full funding/mandated coverage for abortion-on-demand into PlaceboCare to appease NARAL.

And if this exercise repeats itself next year and by some miracle the Republicans get the Senate, suddenly the filibuster and withholding of unanimous consent will once again be the greatest things since sliced bread, and Mitch McConnell won’t have the balls (gum or otherwise) to bypass them.

steveegg on March 5, 2010 at 1:24 PM

A couple of sessions ago here in Texas one our legislators slipped an amendment into a bill that stripped the entire language of the bill from the bill and it passed. I am beginning to see the brilliance in that move.

Amended to sub-section (c) of paragraph ‘G’ that itinerent reminders of ammendment CR 120.65.2010 counter un-amended sections 2, 3, and 27a that pre-unconditional votes of reference 47q are irredeamable at the time of passage of this bill.

Piece of cake.

percysunshine on March 5, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Why are these people so hot to kill little children?

davidk on March 5, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Why are these people so hot to kill little children?

davidk on March 5, 2010 at 1:34 PM

They’re doing it for the children and future generations of workers in the United States of America..Oh say can you see, by the …er…never mind.

BobMbx on March 5, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Incredible how debased this world has become that a “health” bill could even contain the word “abortion” anywhere in it.

curved space on March 5, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Okay, we all know that healthcare is going to be passed by devious and, frankly, downright illegal or unconstitutional means. It is time to organize the uprising. Those whose last names end in A-L bring the pitchforks and torches. M-Z the tar and feathers.

highhopes on March 5, 2010 at 1:41 PM

I don’t think so. I think Ogabe cares more about leaving some sort of legacy behind, and if he ends up having to kneecap pro-choicers, he’ll do it.

Darth Executor on March 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM

He already has his legacy. By the time the bill we are talking about gets passed, the senate’s bill has already been passed by the house and signed by Barry.

MarkTheGreat on March 5, 2010 at 1:51 PM

First of all, all of the arguments here on this thread are MOOT to the fact that the legislation is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL to begin with. Why sit and argue about an unconstitutional law and what it entails?

That’s what we said about McCain/Feingold.
Then the SC decided that the 1st ammendment wasn’t as important as making sure politicians didn’t have to worry about competition.

MarkTheGreat on March 5, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Ok, how about this? Do the anti-abortion bill and get it passed first. Then maybe Stupak will consider your heathcare nightmare.

t.ferg on March 5, 2010 at 2:02 PM

He already has his legacy. By the time the bill we are talking about gets passed, the senate’s bill has already been passed by the house and signed by Barry.

MarkTheGreat on March 5, 2010 at 1:51 PM

I can already predict the speech. This was too important to wait, the GOP was obstructing the process, there was nothing underhanded about the process, and the usual… you stupid people elected me so I can do whatever the hell I want and you have to obey my will.

highhopes on March 5, 2010 at 2:05 PM

First of all, all of the arguments here on this thread are MOOT to the fact that the legislation is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL to begin with. Why sit and argue about an unconstitutional law and what it entails?
That’s what we said about McCain/Feingold.
Then the SC decided that the 1st ammendment wasn’t as important as making sure politicians didn’t have to worry about competition.

MarkTheGreat on March 5, 2010 at 1:53 PM

I agree, the SC is an issue all on its own and great for a whole nother thread all by itself. But this HC issue is in a league of its own and will shred our constitution beyond anything ever tried before. At least McCain/Feingold was struck down at the minimum…there should be no law inhibiting the freedom of speech whether it is a corporate entity or an individual person. Corporate entities have issues that need to be brought to light as well, especially the small business who cant influence national politics in a grandiose way like the mega corporations can. That small business can now be a voice on a small scale that it might influence a local election of a senator or rep that represents the best for them and us.

These small business owners are individuals too and they have the same needs and rights as each of us do, and freeing them up to spend money to speak on our behalf in a way that individuals cannot through mass media is actually a benefit to us as a whole, especialy seeing as that most small business owners are conservatives.

johng on March 5, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Mark,

An interesting fact of law, but it ain’t un-constitutional until the SC says it is. Before that, certain things must happen:

1. It must become law. There is no such thing as an un-constitutional bill.

2. Someone must be harmed (in order to sue), or it must clearly violate the Constitution (e.g.; The President for For Life Act).

3. A case must be heard at the varying levels of the Justice System, ending up in a Federal Appeals Court (hopefully not the 9th).

4. Then the case can go to the SCOTUS, where “you pays yo money and you takes yo chances”.

All of this involves time. Now, two recent cases come to mind that received a SCOTUS decision at light speed: the Chivao case, and Liberals et algore vs. Bush.

I would assume something this large would rocket to the docket at SCOTUS.

BobMbx on March 5, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Jeez wheres’ Allah today all these posts by Ed and its nearly 2 PM . Allah must have mornings off to snuggle with Megah Mc.

I’m sure he’ll have a Palin basher about 4 or so to drive some numbers and show Salem he’s awake!

dhunter on March 5, 2010 at 2:48 PM

anti-abortion rights

Just noting the use of the term

jacrews on March 5, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Classic leftist pretzel logic there. Twist a positive thing (pro-life) into a double negative.

Anyone else notice how Steny Hoyer is starting to look like a white Charlie Rangel in that photo? All he needs is that pencil-thin used car salesman moustache and a bowtie.

UltimateBob on March 5, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Counting on “the blue-dog democrats” or Stupak in particular is wishful thinking.

Like the old Churchill story, they’re just haggling price now.

bofh on March 5, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Ok, how about this? Do the anti-abortion bill and get it passed first. Then maybe Stupak will consider your heathcare nightmare.

t.ferg on March 5, 2010 at 2:02 PM

That timing wouldn’t work – the legislation that’s signed last is the controlling legislation.

steveegg on March 5, 2010 at 4:05 PM

There is a perfect solution to government funded abortion. Make sure there is no government funded medical care.

{^_^}

herself on March 6, 2010 at 5:02 AM