John Larson, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, told ABC News' Jonathan Karl on Sunday morning that 216 of his members have committed to vote "yes" on the Senate's health care bill.
NBC reported early in the afternoon that Michigan's Bart Stupak, who led a group of Democrats threatening to oppose reform over abortion rights, has agreed to support it.
Dej ja vu all over again: We're a day away from a House vote on health care reform and success, once again, may hinge on a deal with Democrats who oppose abortion rights.
As you know, Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak has said he can't vote for the senate health care bill because, at least in his view, it doesn't sufficiently restrict abortion.
If you were following the news on Thursday, you probably heard about one if not both of these developments:
1) The Senate Parliamentarian issued a ruling, effectively forcing the House to pass the Senate health care bill before the Senate could consider amendments to it. This is, of course, not what the House wants to do.
And, from his tone, it sounds like they'll get the votes. From an interview with National Review:
Bart Stupak is not the only key figure in the health care debate -- the Democrats coul try to peel off some of his supporters and make a deal without him -- but he certainly is a key figure. Stupak has been looking at three basic choices:
There are two ways to get health care reform through the House. The first is to try to minimize the number of Democrats who defect over abortion along with Bart Stupak, while flipping an equal number of Democrats who voted against the first bill (but might favor an approach more like the Senate bill.) The upside of this plan is that it's procedurally pretty simple.
Earlier today I puzzled over what exactly Bart Stupak might be negotiating for:
One day, I hope, we will look back at the health care debate as a low point in our national political psyche. The Obama administration and its allies in Congress are on the cusp of bringing some measure of reason to the health care system -- a system so profligate, irrational and cruel that nearly any reform born of deliberate intent could not help but improve it significantly. It's a reform designed in the mold of classic moderate Republicanism, melding fiscal responsibility and compassion for the poor and sick with a series of bold experiments to nudge medicine toward efficiency.
Passing health care is going to require convincing Representative Bart Stupak, or at least his would-be allies, to vote for the bill despite their concerns that it is tantamount to federal funding of abortion services. Slate's Timothy Noah has come up with a novel argument that might help. It isn't tantamount to federal funding of abortions:
Liberals who basically support the Obama administration's approach to health care have believed all along that it favors a public option, but isn't willing to sacrifice the whole bill in order to get it. Many left-wing critics have been slamming us as dupes, parroting the empty gestures of an administration in the pocket of the health insurance industry.
The one place where the Senate bill is more conspicuously liberal than its House counterpart is on abortion policy. And, wouldn't you know it, that one provision could undermine the latest effort to pass health care reform.
Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, who voted for the House bill, has said he can't vote for the Senate bill because of its less restrictive language on abortion. And he's said that many like-minded Democrats would do the same.
Is health care reform dead or, to quote the Princess Bride, "only mostly dead"? It depends a bit on who's talking and when, but at the moment it seems to be only mostly dead.
To review, things looked grim--really, really grim--most of Wednesday. Senate Democrats seemed to be throwing up their hands: We've passed our bill, they were suggesting, and the House could take it or leave it. House Democrats responded pretty clearly: They were inclined to leave it. And the White House? They were waiting to see how Congress reacted--which is to say, they weren't pushing hard in one direction or another.
But as the shock of Tuesday's results wore off, the mood shifted. Barney Frank, who drove a stake into reform with his words on Tuesday night, yanked the stake out and indicated that passing the Senate bill--with promises to fix its flaws later--might just work. Kent Conrad, who would play a key role in the reconciliation process, indicated there were ways to accommodate House concerns.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel spent the day working the phones, floating the possibility of a scaled-back plan that--by all accounts--he prefers. But at a White House meeting last night, sources say, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told the president they weren't ready to throw in the towel. Pelosi, in particular, was said to push hard.
So what's the latest, as of Thursday afternoon? Make no mistake: Things still look gloomy.
Is it worth sacrificing health care reform for ideological purity on abortion? That’s the question Democrats are facing after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to avoid derailing health care legislation, reluctantly accepted an amendment offered by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak that prohibits people who receive any federal health care subsidies from buying insurance plans that cover abortion.
WASHINGTON--For some years, Democrats have denounced parodies casting their party as utterly closed to the views of those who oppose abortion. Last weekend, Democrats proved conclusively that they are, indeed, a big tent--and many in the ranks are furious.
From the outraged comments of the abortion rights movement, you'd think that Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment to the House version of the health care bill would all but overturn Roe v. Wade.
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.
At issue is what happens inside the new insurance exchanges, through which small businesses and people purchasing coverage on their own would shop for insurance. People purchasing coverage through the exchanges would be eligible for subsidies if their household incomes were below four times the poverty level. Abortion rights opponents don't want those subsidies going towards policies that cover abortion services, since that would mean taxpayers opposed to abortion were, in effect, paying for the procedure.
While such "mixing" of funds happens all the time, as Time's Amy Sullivan has observed, the Democratic leadership have tried to accommodate the opposition by proposing to create nominally distinct funds for abortion services or contracting out the financing to a private entity.
But the abortion rights opponents, led by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, wouldn't budge. They wanted the chance to introduce an amendment that would prohibit any plan that covers abortion services from accepting subsidies--a move that would effectively make policies covering abortion unavailable not only for people who need subsidies but, quite possibly, even those who don't.* After a furious day (and days) of negotiation, last night the Democratic leadership--desperate for every vote it could get--finally and very reluctantly gave in.
Standish, Michigan
It's two p.m. on a workday, and the casino parking lot is completely full. Hundreds of people have come for the $20 gambling coupons offered to those willing to donate blood. Turnout for the drive was "above and beyond" expectations, says Frank Cloutier, a spokesman for the Saginaw Chippewa Indians, who run the 800-slot complex. The nurses are already turning people away two hours before closing, and they will soon run out of blood bags.
