Posts Tagged ‘stupak amendment’

Vote is in progress…

Posted: March 21, 2010 by datechguy in opinion/news
Tags: , ,

At the moment 22 democrats have voted no, I suspect the speaker will allow at least 33 to do so, keeping at least 5 in reserve.

The reason why they wouldn’t allow a roll call is it makes it harder to give Democrats the “fishbait” option.

Update: They Yea’s are up to 200 watch the Nay vote on the Dem side go up one at a time as they fight over who gets to have cover.

Update 209-196 16 dems left they must really be fighting for the privilege to pretend that they opposed this bill.

Update 2 219 votes, so that no one democrat can be blamed. I guess I won’t be working for a while. Technically the Stupak 6 make the difference.

Update 3 Stupak is now claiming that the Stupak amendment doesn’t protect life. Is claiming that Democrats have ensured that the sanctity of life is protected. Apparently when you choose to go for the big lie you go all in. That line about the democrats being the protectors of life is going to haunt Mr. Stupak for the rest of his political life. The ad writes itself.

As anyone who has read this blog for any length of time knows one thing that drives me crazy are “Cafeteria Catholics” people who proclaim Catholicism but then act directly against it’s precepts. I’ve pointed out the voluntary nature of Catholicism and people’s ability find another denomination if they don’t care for it.

I’ve also said in the past that liberalism has two Sacraments the First is Abortion and the Second is Gay Marriage.

Well the acolytes of liberalism have finally reached a line they would not cross. Some principled liberals have noted for a while that this administration really has no principles.

But now the great sacraments of modern liberalism have been defiled so action must be taken:

Item:

Gay “Boycott” of the DNC:

The bloggers have published a comprehensive list of reasons and say the money should “pause” to the organization until promises are kept: “We are not calling for a boycott of donations to the DNC. We are simply calling for a pause until the party follows through on its campaign promise to repeal DADT and DOMA, and pass ENDA. The party will get the same donations it would have gotten, when the promises are kept. The Democrats could choose to make good on their promise today. And by doing so, they will only further motivate the Democratic base to again turn out for the next election, a decidedly good thing.”

Jane Hamshier is on board:

“LGBT Americans, our families, and our friends kept our promise at the ballot box, we now expect President Obama to keep his in the White House,” they wrote. In addition to Hamsher, cosponsors include the liberal blog Daily Kos, writer and editor Dan Savage and radio host Michelangelo Signorile.

The boycott will be lifted, Aravosis and Sudbay write, when legislation is signed enacting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. During the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama pledged action on all these issues but has not pressed them since entering office.

Huffpo talkes about it too:

I think the freeze in fundraising is a great idea. I also think the problem with the gay rights agenda in Congress has more to do with the political system than the particularly spineless nature of most Democratic representatives.

Oh it’s a freeze a Pause, what is it 90 days same as cash?

And then there is abortion and it looks like some members of the house are making a line in the sand:

The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.

That’s unequivocal, with no wiggle room. The Washington Post reported this morning that Rep. Diana DeGette had collected 40 signatures vowing a No vote, without noting the language of their vow or how this would be communicated.

Now we know — at least 41 House Dems are writing directly to Pelosi, telling her that they will not vote for anything “that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.”

Yes we know 41 house dems are so unequivocal about their opposition that they are unwilling to release their names publicly.

These people consider pro-life and pro-marriage democrats “Cafeteria Democrats” unworthy of the true faith.

What these people don’t realize is the democratic party unlike the Catholic church and modern liberalism is not a religion. It has positions but not sacraments. But apparently some don’t see it that way.

As a republican I am encouraged, I guess they didn’t learn as much as I thought.

I still say we should consider 4 parties, Two conservative (fiscal & social) and two liberal (fiscal & social) it would be interesting to see what the composition of a congress of these parties would be.

Apparently he figured it out after the vote:

“I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill,” Obama said. “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.”

Saying the bill cannot change the status quo regarding the ban on federally funded abortions, the president said, “There are strong feelings on both sides” about an amendment passed Saturday and added to the legislation, “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.”

Fr. Jenkins of Notre Dame who was just extended there could not be reached for comment, but you can contact him here.

A: Both involved changes in Obamacare that proponents of the bill insisted didn’t exist in the first place.

You might remember back when Sarah Palin brought up death panels in the bill she was (and still is) attacked for it, yet the bill in the Senate had the relevant language pulled from it to remove the death panels that didn’t exist.

Now comes the Stupak Amendment and Palin has this to say:

All of us who value the sanctity of life are grateful for the success of the pro-life majority in the House this evening in its battle against federal funding of abortion in this bill, but it’s ironic because we were promised that abortion wasn’t covered in the bill to begin with. Our healthy distrust of these government leaders made us look deeper into the bill because unfortunately we knew better than to trust what they were saying. The victory tonight to amend the bill and eliminate that federal funding for abortion was great – because abortion is not health care. Now we can only hope that Rep. Stupak’s amendment will hold in the final bill, though the Democratic leadership has already refused to promise that it won’t be scrapped later.

And she doesn’t stop there:

We had been told there were no “death panels” in the bill either. But look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care.

Look closely at provisions addressing illegal aliens’ health care coverage too.

Reality tends to trump things.