There were no negotiations over the weekend in Washington, D.C. on health care reform, but there was still a lot of work and jockeying going on behind the scenes, as everyone waited to see what would happen in the Massachusetts Senate race.
And the cracks in the Democratic facade were beginning to appear even before Election Day.
In Ohio, Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH), a freshman who represents much of Cincinnati, said he would not vote for a health care bill unless the plan has the controversial abortion language backed by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI).
"I believe in clarity and simplicity, and we should make it simple and clear that taxpayer funds aren't going to abortion coverage," Driehaus told the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Right now, there is no way that the Stupak language is going to be in the final bill.
We'll see if Driehaus really follows through on that threat, because he is one of about 10-12 pro-life Democrats who could find themselves in a similar situation.
SOURCE: Jamie Dupree
Monday, January 18, 2010
With Senate seat in jeopardy, Democrats seek health options
Faced with the possibility that Republican Scott Brown could win tomorrow’s US Senate election, Democrats in Washington are discussing with great urgency how they could keep his vote from scuttling comprehensive health care legislation, President Obama’s top domestic priority.
None is certain to work, and all carry political risks.
One possibility is that the House could quickly pass the Senate version without changing it, and later, both chambers could pass fixes that reflect the evolving House-Senate compromise. This could be done using a special parliamentary procedure called “reconciliation,’’ which requires only a simple majority vote of 51 votes in the Senate.
Whether House Democrats who disliked the Senate bill can be persuaded to go along with that idea, remains in question. It would outrage Republicans and provoke the conservative grassroots. Antiabortion Democrats in the House oppose the Senate bill’s provisions on abortion coverage; liberals might prefer to ditch the Senate bill and start all over again; and moderates might balk at voting for any health care bill after what went on in Massachusetts.
But Ron Pollack of Families USA, which supports the health overhaul efforts, called this “probably the cleanest, most effective, and most practical way to pass the legislation, and do so quickly.’’
Another possibility would be for Democrats to hurry and pass a compromise bill before Brown were seated.
SOURCE: Boston Globe
None is certain to work, and all carry political risks.
One possibility is that the House could quickly pass the Senate version without changing it, and later, both chambers could pass fixes that reflect the evolving House-Senate compromise. This could be done using a special parliamentary procedure called “reconciliation,’’ which requires only a simple majority vote of 51 votes in the Senate.
Whether House Democrats who disliked the Senate bill can be persuaded to go along with that idea, remains in question. It would outrage Republicans and provoke the conservative grassroots. Antiabortion Democrats in the House oppose the Senate bill’s provisions on abortion coverage; liberals might prefer to ditch the Senate bill and start all over again; and moderates might balk at voting for any health care bill after what went on in Massachusetts.
But Ron Pollack of Families USA, which supports the health overhaul efforts, called this “probably the cleanest, most effective, and most practical way to pass the legislation, and do so quickly.’’
Another possibility would be for Democrats to hurry and pass a compromise bill before Brown were seated.
SOURCE: Boston Globe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
