|
|
|
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 6:14 PM
Posts: 133,
Visits: 409
|
|
We're targeting 9 potential flip-floppers in the Senate - members who would vote for Health Care bill cloture before they vote against it on final passage. Please share this link with others and encourage them to call and email these Senators to vote NO on cloture AND final passage!
http://gop.com/index.php/12truths/states/
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 12:32 AM
Posts: 338,
Visits: 656
|
|
I notice that of these 12, a number are pro-life Senators. Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Evan Bayh of the 9 shown are all pro-life Democrats who have my utmost support. Apart from these 4, I know of only 4 other pro-life Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid, Tim Johnson, Robert Byrd, and Robert Casey.
There is a good chance these pro-life Democrats were only opposing health care reform before because the bills had a clear pro-abortion agenda. Under the new House compromise with Bart Stupak's amendment, or perhaps even Harry Reid's proposal (which would deny government funding for abortions but mandate at least 1 non-abortion and 1 abortion private insurance plan in each state) they might be less opposed now however.
That doesn't make them flip-floppers though, as the GOP is accusing them of being. It just means they opposed it before on ethical grounds and if the abortion issue is cleared up, would feel compelled to show they weren't just making abortion an excuse to oppose health care reform, but are willing to live up to their side of the bargain. It'd otherwise be like demanding the other side make concessions, and then when they do, still backing off and refusing to compromise. That'd also seem bad to the people you're representing, and I know these Senators value their constituents highly.
On a side note, I personally know the names of 35 pro-life Democrats in the House, but only 8 in the Senate, so they may not have as great an effect in the Senate, regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 12:32 AM
Posts: 338,
Visits: 656
|
|
I would imagine a number of these pro-life holdouts were doing so due to cost concerns, and Reid, in his close contact with his pro-life colleagues, probably realized this, and has tailored his new version of the bill to allay their concerns. With Reid's version now estimated to actually reduce the deficit, while maintaining language against abortion funding (though frustratingly not as thorough as Stupak's amendment - probably in Reid's attempt at a satisfy-everyone compromise), I am sure these pro-life Democrats are starting to fully rethink their positions now to a one.
Some issues I expect to see in the coming weeks:
1. Will the individual mandate stay? Expect to see Democrats parlaying on the issue, and in my opinion, probably kicking it out of the bill, if not in the Senate, than in the House. This alone may hold up the bill for 1-4 months.
2. Will the pro-life Democrats agree to the softened language regarding abortion that Reid's bill uses, or make a tough stand in supporting all of the Stupak provisions? This might hold up the bill 1-3 months if they can't agree on the exact provisions, but since Reid's is mostly accommodating, I don't expect it to be as much of an issue as before when the health care bill had a clear pro-abortion agenda.
3. Will other issues, such as tort reform, get a late attempt at being slotted into the bill? With all this hashing and rehashing going on, expect that various factions will jump at the attempt to confront this issue or perhaps the nursing shortage, and get additional language added.
|
|
|
|
