Bloggers have erupted in response to Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak’s amendment that bans the use of federal funds for abortion to a significantly broader extent than ever before. It also prohibits plans offered on the exchange that receive subsidies from covering abortion services.
It’s just another twist in the already contentious debate that’s left many liberals wondering how much more they can stomach and a White House trying to stay above the fray.
Time’s Amy Sullivan examines some of the events that led to Speaker Pelosi’s acceptance of the Stupak amendment:
[It] also seems clear that the Democratic leadership and White House dropped the ball on finding a compromise with pro-life Democrats. The deal reached late last night/early this morning in the Speaker’s office is not a compromise; it is in fact more than the Catholic bishops and Stupak himself asked for as late as mid-summer. The Speaker didn’t get rolled by crafty or stubborn members of her party, though. This was a predictable consequence of a high-handed approach to dealing with pro-life members of the Democratic caucus.
The American Prospect’s Ann Friedman reacts:
This also sets apart women’s rights from the Democratic/progressive/whatever agenda. As something expendable. But fundamental rights for women are not peripheral. They are core. And not just because of so-called progressive values. In a political sense, too: Seeing as how the Democratic Party relies on women voters to win elections, you would think they would have come around to this no-brainer by now.
It’s pretty cramped underneath this bus, what with 50 percent of Americans down here.
Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that President Obama’s press secretary refused to take a position on the amendent during today’s briefing: “Despite pledging during the presidential campaign to protect a woman’s right to choose, the Obama White House is refusing to weigh in on an amendment that represents perhaps the most restrictive anti-abortion measure introduced in a generation.”
The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn says, “Opponents of abortion rights won a significant political victory last night, making it more likely that millions of American women will no longer be able to purchase insurance that covers abortion services.”
Jessica Aarons guest-blogs on Wonk Room, calling the amendment “A Monumental Setback For Abortion Access.” She argues, “Eighty-seven percent of employer plans offer abortion coverage. None of that will matter if the Senate takes its cues from the House. In every other way, this bill will expand access to health care. But for millions of women, they are about to lose coverage they currently have and often need.”
However, some republican and conservatives think the Stupak amendmenet may spell the end for reform. The Weekly Standard’s John McCormack examines Republican strategy on the amendment:
Substantively, the Stupak amendment was a “tremendous victory for pro-lifers, and the size of the vote actually should occasion some comment about the audacity of the Democratic leadership to try to block the overwhelming will of the House,” says National Review’s Ramesh Ponnuru, author of The Party of Death. “I think we have really pushed far into the future any chance that they’re going to make a run at the Hyde amendment.”
Strategically, the Stupak amendment has divided the Democrats. Pelosi’s decision to allow a vote on it elicited “tears from some veteran [Democratic] female lawmakers.” … Democrats are left playing a game of chicken.
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey looks at reports that several Republican lawmakers were considering voting “present” instead of approving the amendment. Morrissey believes the Republicans did “the right thing” voting yes:
Republicans can make that argument only because they supported the Stupak amendment, even against what appeared to be their longer-term interests at that moment. They acted on principle and can now argue that the Stupak coalition must respond in kind or be exposed as the worst kind of hypocrites in election challenges next year — challenges which that Stupak town-hall meeting shows will resonate. Had they tried playing the legislative game with the Stupak amendment, this rift among Democrats shown by Sargent would never have appeared, and they would have lost the ability to highlight a backroom effort to rid the bill of an amendment that received more votes than the bill itself.
As the debate continues, there’s more buzz in reference to this post from The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent, who reports that several lawmakers are pledging to strip the Stupak amendment from the bill. He posts video of Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who says she has the votes to overturn the amendment. However, according to Sargent, the politics going forward get much more complex:
It will be much tougher for pro-choice Dems to cave and support the bill with Stupak than it was for House progressives to cave and back the bill despite its lack of a robust public option.
Here’s why: Because the public option had initially been written off for dead, the version liberals did secure allowed them to claim they had won something. By contrast, Stupak is a significant step backward for advocates of abortion rights and women’s health issues. So it will be much tougher for pro-choice House Dems to back a final bill with Stupak in the end. This will intensify.
Tags: abortion, house bill, pelosi, reform, stupak
