Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... - Newsweek.com
SPONSORED BY
Full Post
Posted Tuesday, November 17, 2009 3:33 PM

Stupak Watch: Pro-Life Dems Back Off

Sarah Kliff

Another day, another development in the debate over abortion in health-care reform. This time, it’s a swing in favor of the abortion-rights side: pro-life Democrat Sens. Ben Nelson and Bob Casey Jr., both staunch abortion opponents and Stupak-amendment supporters, are toning down their demands.

It was just last week that Nelson was telling Politico he was “sure” he would not support a health-care reform bill without a Stupak amendment. But late last night, CNN put this small item on its political ticker: “Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb…now says he would be satisfied with the less restrictive language approved by the Senate Finance Committee.” Read: no more Stupak.

Then, there’s Casey, a reliably anti-abortion rights voice in the Senate. He voted for something similar to the Stupak amendment in committee, but since the House vote has pulled back his support, with statement’s like this one in Congress Daily:

Advertisement

[Casey] said he did not want to “draw lines in the sand.”

"I think it’s important we get a good strong health-care bill done this year, but I think we can get a bill done that keeps public dollars out of paying for abortion,” Casey said. “There is still some work to be done on that, even in the light of what the House did…The Senate is a different place; there are different dynamics.”

This follows on the heels of some earlier comments to the same tune.

What gives? A few things, first being Obama’s pretty clear declaration that the amendment will not make it the piece of legislation he signs. Then you have an incredibly strong mobilization of the abortion-rights community to defeat the Stupak amendment (compared with their incredibly lame lack of mobilization around the House version). And, last, you have the math, courtesy of NARAL: 41 abortion-rights senators, 40 opposed, and 19 in between. Even if rights opponents shore up middle-of-the-road senators, they’re still at least one vote shy of the 60 needed to introduce the amendment to the floor. For Stupak, the numbers don't quite add up.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: Davole (November 19, 2009 at 8:58 AM)

Ankhorite -

Very rarely is any woman "forced to bear children against her will."

The fact that any woman could be pregnant is usually a direct result of her reluctance to SAY NO!

There are 3 words to describe most women who advocate abortion - immature, irresponsible, and narcissistic!


Posted By: Ankhorite (November 19, 2009 at 12:50 AM)

The female electorate is tired of being pushed around by men like Stupak and (EX-senator) Santorum, no matter what party they come from.

Vote against women's lives and privacy at your own risk, gentlemen.  The nation is sick of this constant wrangle over whether women are human beings and full citizens, with the right to decide for themselves about their pregnancies.

There is a word for a woman forced to bear children against her will, and that word is slave.


Posted By: Davole (November 18, 2009 at 7:17 PM)

DoubleD586 -

You ridiculously claim that abortion saves lives, despite the fact that close to 2 million infants are killed by abortions each year in the US.

How many lives does abortion save each year in the US?

You appear to be a typical liberal who can't see the forest because of the trees!