Liberals Try Various Tactics to Stop Abortion Amendment

By: Stephanie Condon
Topics: Health Care

5574442Pressure on Democrats to abandon abortion restrictions added to the House health care legislation continues to grow, just as the debate over the divisive issue heads to the Senate.

More than 500 people from 30 states gathered at the Capitol today in opposition to an amendment to the health care overhaul that would restrict health insurance coverage for abortion. The so-called Stupak amendment, introduced by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Penn.), made it into the House bill last month.

The group of abortion rights supporters in Washington today were organized by a coalition made up of dozens of groups that advocate for issues like abortion rights, women's rights, and civil rights. The "Coalition to Pass Health Care Reform and Stop Stupak" held the event with some of its strongest backers in Congress, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). Citizens in attendance also directly lobbied their own representatives.

Today's lobbying activities were part of a week of events the coalition is organizing to raise awareness of the Stupak amendment, including at more than 120 college campus events and online. The lobbying has largely focused on Democrats. Sixty-four Democrats joined 176 Republicans to pass the Stupak amendment.

Today's activities follow news that Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), one of the few Democratic senators whose health care vote is still in play, plans to introduce an amendment to add Stupak-like language to the Senate bill.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

The fate of the amendment, however, still depends on the support it can maintain the House of Representatives, since Democratic leaders will have to merge elements of the House bill with whatever comes out of the Senate before the final bill reaches President Obama's desk. Some Democratic House members are now saying they have enough votes to block any bill that comes back to the House with the Stupak language intact.

Additionally, the Stop Stupak coalition claims that since the passage of the House bill, some representatives who voted for the amendment have expressed doubts it. The GOP presented nearly unanimous opposition to the overall health care bill, but there were 36 Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment and also voted in favor of the overall reform package.

With those representatives in mind, the political action committee FDL Action, affiliated with the liberal blog network FireDogLake, is launching today its own campaign against the Stupak amendment. The PAC will be phone banking into the districts of Democratic lawmakers who voted for the amendment -- and ask voters to demand that their representatives do not hinge their final health care vote on the inclusion of the Stupak language.

"Bart Stupak has bragged he has enough votes to kill the final bill if his demands aren't met" Firedoglake founder Jane Hamsher said in a statement. "Our goal is to collapse Stupak's hand and short-circuit this attack on women's rights. We hope that by reaching out to educate likely voters in their districts to the far-reaching implications of the Stupak language, we can help these wayward Democrats understand that having the Hyde language in the bill is sufficient to their needs."

Stephanie Condon
Stephanie Condon is a political reporter for CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

22 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 22 Comments


by mapkywka February 1, 2010 10:16 PM EST: Abortion is murder, why argue its wrong. I can't waite for the day when all babies can be born without the threat of being killed. Lets put Planned Parenthood out of business and put them on the trash heap of evil's such as we did when we outlawed slavery.; Reply to this comment


by thebob-bob December 3, 2009 1:24 AM EST: Isn't Stupak a member of the ultra-right evangelical christian group "The Family" that's been directing anti-abortion money to his fellow "Family" members in Uganda? His man there is pushing legislation to make homosexuality punishable by death! Yea, that's pro-life values for you.

These folks make me sick.; Reply to this comment


by justdatrooth December 3, 2009 1:02 AM EST: It's funny how liberals always seem to have some underhanded "tactic" or "scheme". Liberals, why all the skullduggery? Could you just once in your lives be straightforward?

The funny thing is, even Obama has finally seen through the Liberal Agenda. LOL; Reply to this comment


by crownprinceofweb20 December 2, 2009 9:27 PM EST: Is terrible how people would support the wholesale of murder of children. Abortion is murder and taxes dollars shouldn't be used to finance it. The Pope and all leaders of Christian/Islam/and Judaism should stand up and support the saving of helpless babies lives.; Reply to this comment


by akcoyote December 2, 2009 5:54 PM EST: by omded December 2, 2009 2:39 PM EST

If a woman wants an abortion, let her have one. Abortion should be a matter of choice. However, just as bad as denying a woman the right to an abortion is forcing someone with deep convictions against abortion to help pay for someone to have one. In other words, if people don't want to be part of the abortion process, DON'T TRY TO FORCE THEM TO ASSIST IN IT.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your assumption is only partially true. Abortion is a moral issue. It is simply wrong to kill the unborn. Making someone who opposes this pre-birth murder PAY for it only adds insult to injury.; Reply to this comment


by ajvw December 2, 2009 4:38 PM EST: I'd gladly give each one of the women who want my tax dollars to pay for their abortion a quarter to forever hold between their knees.; Reply to this comment

by klgrube1 December 2, 2009 3:53 PM EST

I will stop paying taxes if even one penny of that money is going to go to pay to take the life of an innocent child. I will not have my tax money used that way and I WILL go to jail over it if I have to. Women have to stop thinking of abortion as a means of contraception. That attitude is just wrong on so many levels. And don't think for two seconds that you can lie to me and tell me, well you're really NOT paying for it - it's coming from private funds that are paying into the 'system'. Don't think you can play shell games and funny money with this. If ANY bill that Congress is even THINKING about passing doesn't have very strong, specific language saying it will not directly or indirectly or in any way pay for a woman to take the life of her own child, it had BETTER fail or it will cause a tax revolt like you wouldn't believe in this country - and I will help lead it if I have to. Seriously.

Reply to this comment


by omded December 2, 2009 4:24 PM EST: Very good. And I will fully support and respect you for your decision. You are clearly showing that you do not believe in abortions, and that is your right. I also aplaud you for BEING what you believe. Good for you klgrube1!

You are being who you are, and letting others be who they are! I am glad to have you as a fellow countryman and American Brother or Sister.

by lamopo December 2, 2009 3:47 PM EST

One thing not pointed out in this article is that abortion is already not paid for by federal dollars in any way. The Stupak Amendment would prevent people from using their own private insurance to cover abortion procedures. Nobody's dollars are being forced to do anything here. Somebody wants a plan that covers abortion, they can get one. If they don't want a plan that covers abortion, they can get that too. It's enraging that republicans so vehemently want to ban all abortion that they are trying to control private industry (which they are supposedly against) in order to achieve their means.

Reply to this comment


by velma179 December 2, 2009 4:31 PM EST: by lamopo December 2, 2009 3:47 PM EST

"The Stupak Amendment would prevent people from using their own private insurance to cover abortion procedures."

*********

No, that's not really true.

It disallows anyone who uses any amount of federal dollars (subsidies offered in the legislation) to have insurance that covers ELECTIVE abortion. And it disallows abortion to be covered by the Public Option even though individuals will use their own money to pay those premiums.

As is written and already law per the Hyde amendment -- federal money would STILL be allowed in payment for abortion resulting from rape or incest -- or if the woman's life is in danger.

If a person has Private Insurance and they pay their premiums 100% (without federal dollars) they will not be affected by the Stupak amendment.

The amendment is financially restrictive, that is for sure -- but it does not make abortion illegal or change the basic premise of "the right to choose" as per the Roe vs. Wade decision.

by numeaning December 2, 2009 3:34 PM EST

TOGETHER?ENDURING OUTRAGEOUS SACRIFICE?we must break the backs of their devouring habits?of conveniently borrowing life and limb from our next generation! The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent on the pleasure of anyone else!

Reply to this comment


by omded December 2, 2009 4:10 PM EST: Everything is contingent upon the pleasures of those involved. That's life in the human world. It's also known as "free will", and, alas, one thing everyone can agree on, is that God, whoever he, she, or they may be, want us all to be free to make our own choices. God may or may not agree with stealing, violence, killing, or lots of other important issues. However, nonetheless, the world was created such that we all have the freedom of choice to do as we see fit. Perhaps it's only through our excercise of our own free will that God(s) can figure out who each of us really is. We don't avoid violence because we can't do it. We don't feed the hungry because we have to. We do or don't do simply because it's what we believe in, and, ultimately, what we believe in is what we are.

Many of us who support abortion rights wouldn't actually have an abortion. However, we support a woman's right to make that decision for herself, just as God(s) has given us all the right to decide about all important aspects of our lives and personal behavior. I can't personally see abortion as pleasing to God(s), however, I believe it would be even less pleasing to God(s) if we removed the free will of Women to make the choice for themselves. I don't believe God(s) will reward or punish anyone for the choices or behavior of others, and, likewise, I don't believe God(s) will reward anyone for removing someone's right to choose - a right that God(s) specifically gave to each and every one of us, and to every woman in the case of abortion.


by Bomber1052 December 2, 2009 5:47 PM EST: To Omded:

Letting others do as they see fit even though you wouldn't do it yourself is utterly flawed reasoning and is not what the U.S. is founded upon. I mean, why only apply that logic to abortion?

"I would never own slaves, but I'd never stop you from owning slaves."
"I would never burn someone's house down, but I'd never stop you from burning someone's house down."
"I would never rob a bank, but I'd never stop you from robbing a bank."
Etc. etc etc.

I don't think I need to continue.

You would *never* apply the "free will" argument to any of the aforementioned activities-- You would *never* go on about a "right to choose" to engage in any of the aforementioned activities-- So why should I accept the "free will" argument in regards to abortion? I shouldn't. This has nothing to do with God or religion. This has everything to do with preventing one segment of the population from impeding upon the life and well-being of another. Simply because you wouldn't do it, doesn't mean that others should allowed to be able to do it.

When the law allows one human to harm another human solely because it's convenient for them to do so, then that law should be changed. It's really that simple.