Following Saturday night's vote, I posted
a list of the 42 members of the House who voted for the Stupak
amendment to bar taxpayer funding for abortions and then in favor
of the main bill. In the list below, I've narrowed it down to 16
members who specifically cited the anti-abortion language in
their subsequent press statements explaining their final votes.
Keep in mind that the final vote was 220 to 215, and if Nancy
Pelosi would have lost any three of these members without picking
up support elsewhere, she would not have been able to pass the
bill. And while it's true, as some have argued, that Pelosi may
have released some vulnerable Democrats to vote against the bill
once she secured enough votes, it's unlikely that if she had
sufficient support to pass the bill without the anti-abortion
language, that she would have risked the fierce backlash among
pro-choicers. Today, 41 Democrats
vowed to vote against the final bill if the Stupak language
isn't stripped.
While we can't know for sure how many of the 16 members listed
below would have voted for the bill anyway, it at least gives us
some idea of how many members are at least sensitive enough about
the abortion issue to tout the adoption of pro-life language. All
of the members listed below are Democrats, with the exception of
Joseph Cao, the lone Republican who voted for the bill but has
emphatically stated that he could not have done so without the
Stupak amendment. I linked to their press release in each case,
and put an asterik next to the names of those who co-sponsored
the Stupak provision.
Yet we had the Hyde Amendment prohibiting taxpayers funding
abortion. If the language funneling money to pay for abortions
hadn't been in the bill, would Nan have had a bargaining chip to
use w/ pro-life Dems? The bill is abysmal, for so many reasons,
not the least of which is it's unlimited impact on the economy,
job losses, & increased unemployment expenditures. It
*increases* the cost of insurance, for everyone, whether
privately insured or insured in the public option. My cost in the
po would be more than I'm paying now.
They aren't helping anyone. They're expanding control to govt.
Evidently, it is alright to expand government control over our
lives as long as we throw the "pro-lifers" a "doggie bone". That
admendment in the bill, if it's ever made into law, would be
taken out by a federal judge, first chance the baby killers have
to litigate it.
…listed below are Democrats, with the exception of Joseph Cao , the lone Republican who voted for the bill but has emphatically stated that he could not have done so without the Stupak amendment. … This Post Helpful Sites graphic design louisville carloshuffman1955 Girls Talk November 19, 2009 No Comments Leave a reply You must be logged in to post a comment. Popular Posts Cheers to My First Entry Handmade…
…large a contingent are the Stupak Democrats? Well, there were 41 Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment in November and then went on to vote for the actual bill. Of those, 15 Democrats specifically cited the strict language on federal funding for abortion in press releases issued to explain their votes. And as recently as last week, Stupak told the Weekly Standard that there were still “ at least 10…
Recon| 11.9.09 @ 5:14PM
Yet we had the Hyde Amendment prohibiting taxpayers funding abortion. If the language funneling money to pay for abortions hadn't been in the bill, would Nan have had a bargaining chip to use w/ pro-life Dems? The bill is abysmal, for so many reasons, not the least of which is it's unlimited impact on the economy, job losses, & increased unemployment expenditures. It *increases* the cost of insurance, for everyone, whether privately insured or insured in the public option. My cost in the po would be more than I'm paying now.
They aren't helping anyone. They're expanding control to govt.
Pingback| 11.9.09 @ 5:54PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : 16 Members Cited Anti-A links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pete2| 11.9.09 @ 7:08PM
Evidently, it is alright to expand government control over our lives as long as we throw the "pro-lifers" a "doggie bone". That admendment in the bill, if it's ever made into law, would be taken out by a federal judge, first chance the baby killers have to litigate it.
yoyo| 11.10.09 @ 1:50AM
UGG Women's Metallic Classic UGG Women's Sandra UGG Australia Sandals UGG Classic Mini Boots UGG Lo Pro Classic Tall UGG Nightfall 5359 UGG Roxy Boots UGG Sundance II 5325 UGG Ultra Short UGG Ultra Tall UGG Women's Sandals UGG Classic Cardy UGG Classic Tall Metallic UGG Classic Tall Patent Paisley
Pingback| 11.19.09 @ 11:03AM
The American Spectator : Amspecblog : 16 Members Cited Anti … | wheredoesthewordhallo links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
fake breitling montbrillant ol| 12.9.09 @ 1:56AM
Great post!
fake breitling montbrillant olympus sells at our web with high quality and resonable price.Welcome to choose.
Thanks!
Pingback| 1.25.10 @ 1:01PM
Democrats Scramble to Save Obamacare | America Watches Obama links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: