The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Stupak: House Won't Vote for Senate Bill

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Stupak: House Won’t Vote for Senate Bill

By Philip Klein on 1.18.10 @ 7:50PM

The New York Times reports of the emerging Democratic contingency plan for passing a health care bill if Scott Brown wins. The idea is to avoid another go around in the Senate, and have the House simply approve the Senate version with no changes. But Rep. Bart Stupak, who voted for the original House bill only after it adopted his abortion language that was rejected in the Senate, poured cold water on the idea:

In an interview on Monday, Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan, who opposes the Senate bill because of provisions related to insurance coverage of abortions, said: “House members will not vote for the Senate bill. There’s no interest in that.”

When the idea was suggested at a meeting of the House Democratic Caucus last week, Mr. Stupak said, “It went over like a lead balloon.”

“Why would any House member vote for the Senate bill, which is loaded with special-interest provisions for certain states?” Mr. Stupak asked. “That’s not health care.”

Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 1.18.10 @ 8:20PM

I'd like to say, that I trust MR Stupak, and that I'd take his word at face value, but I can't, because in the last year (plus), finding an honest Democrat is, well, it's completely impossible!! I don't believe a word, that comes out of their collective mouths, about anything. So if he is an honorable man (that he claims to be), than show it with your actions MR Stupak, and don't let the Senate force feed you their version of the Bill. But I'm not holding my breath though, because, everybody in Washington is for sale these days. Remember Ben Nelson? He sold his abortion position, for a few bucks Nebraska, and sold his soul forever!!

Rob of Worcester| 1.18.10 @ 10:18PM

Any Democrat hoping that if the House passed the Senate bill, the result could be signed by
President Obama into law must ignore the clear public meaning of the following constitutional requirement: "All bills for raising revenue
shall originate in the House of Representatives ..." (Article I, Section 7). Elsewhere the Senate bill has been described as raising revenue in excess of $200 billion. Maybe the Democrats in Congress with leanings toward this approach figure that it would look like a bigger defeat politically to pass no bill whatsoever than to seemingly pass a bill that would more than likely be rejected by the courts as constitutionally defective (it would certainly be constitutionally defective, but that might not stop the courts from rejecting it as such).

Don L| 1.19.10 @ 6:57AM

"I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant"

The little people of America are fearful of their government now and are just beginning to fight back at this scourge called liberal progressivism, with its arrogant anti-freedom impulses.
We are, at this very moment, making history.

Sapient| 1.19.10 @ 9:58AM

The Democrats have adopted the philosophy of JR Ewing of the old Dallas prime time soap opera:

"When you give up your integrity, the rest is a piece of cake."

Remember the parable of the scorpion and the frog.

"We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in." - Thomas Paine

Pingback| 1.20.10 @ 12:10AM

…on the voters. And “Plan B,” in which the House would simply adopt the Senate health care bill, is never going to happen. Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak has already pronounced that idea dead-on-arrival : House members will not vote for the Senate bill. There’s no interest in that. And Stupak is by no means the only House member with reservations about Obamacare. Democrat Rep. Anthony Weiner…

charlytuna| 1.28.10 @ 2:08PM

Every time I hear people say they don't trust the government, I am bewildered and bemused. You make the U.S. government the enemy, when its very purpose is to protect not just your freedoms, but the freedoms of all Americans. I guess you buy into the Libertarian Capitalist mantra that any government is bad government. Don't say you're a Republican if that's true. You do have a Party, but it's not the Republican Party. It's the anarchist Libertarian Capitalist Party that has hijacked the name Republican. They use buzzwords to get well-meaning but unaware Americans to support them. They have come in a Trojan Horse claiming to be Republicans but they're not. They're not necessarily Christians either, even though they claim to be. They don't really care about abortion, healthcare, security or socialism. Their only objective is to dismantle the U.S. government so they don't have to pay taxes, and if they have to pretend to be Republicans to do it, that's what they'll do. Machiavelli at his finest. These are the people who have very nearly destroyed this country in a short 8 years. Why? Because they HATE taxes. They like making the peasants pay -- just don't make them pay. Of course, without taxes, we wouldn't have decent roads, police and military, safety oversight on food and drugs, criminals would be free to roam the streets...catastrophes like "Katrina" would be regular occurrence, but hey, if it means no taxes, well then it's worth it, right? When they say, “Free Market” what they really mean is, if the American public is stupid enough to be gouged, than allow us to gouge them! No one is held accountable, it’s every man for himself. That’s exactly why Katrina happened. It wasn’t the storm that killed those people it was the negligence of the Bush Administration. Bart Stupak may very well be America's next hope. He seems to be a man with values -- something refreshing in this day and age. Vision falls flat on its face when there are no values attached -- we don't need a President who models himself after the past presidents, we need a President who is himself, the embodiment of a presidential leader. Someone with vision and character, who stands up for his values. Bart Stupak has come out of nowhere to be that man for me. If I have to write him in, in 2012, then that’s what I’ll do.

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?