Pelosi annoyed on abortion

[Tom Clancy]

Pelosi annoyed on abortion - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com

Speaker Nancy Pelosi got exasperated when asked at her weekly news conference about the unwillingness of some Democrats – including Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) – to support the health bill because of abortion language.

“Let me say this: This is not about abortion! This is a bill about providing quality, affordable health care for all Americans,” she said, more eager than ever to stay on message as her legacy becomes increasingly tied to what happens in the next few weeks.

The speaker had just talked about areas of disagreement between the House and Senate bills that are being worked on as leaders iron out legislative language for a comprehensive package that Congress can pass. But she omitted abortion.

“I will not have it turned into a debate on (abortion),” she said, when asked a follow-up question about Stupak. “Let me say it clearly: we all agree on the three following things. … One is there is no federal funding for abortion. That is the law of the land. It is not changed in this bill. There is no change in the access to abortion. No more or no less: It is abortion neutral in terms of access or diminution of access. And, third, we want to pass a health care bill.”

Stupak went on ABC Thursday morning to say he and 11 colleagues who voted for the earlier version of the House bill will vote ‘no’ this time if abortion language isn’t changed from what’s in the Senate version of the bill.

“Let’s face it, I want to see health care,” Stupak said. “But we’re not going to bypass some principles and beliefs that we feel strongly about."

But Pelosi insisted during her news conference a few hours later that House Democratic members have not come to her with concerns about abortion language.

“As a matter of fact, they haven’t said that to me,” she said.

“You know what? Again, this is the city of (rumors). When people think there isn’t going to be a bill, they can take whatever position they want. But now they know there’s going to be a bill, and these members are saying, ‘let’s talk,’” she said.

Pelosi reiterated her insistence that there shouldn’t be anything controversial about abortion in the new bill.

“So if you believe there should be no federal funding of abortion, and if you believe there should be no change in the policy, and if you believe we need health care for all Americans, we will pass a bill.”

- James Hohmann

 

[DiamondDave]

I would say "fuck Pelosi"

But I would not wish that true torture on anyone..

 

[California Girl]

Damn, that woman is a petulant child.

 

[Claudette]

Kinda funny. She doesn't want a debate on abortion but there it is.

There are 10 or 11 Congressmen who will not go along with the healthcare bs because of abortion. They cannot "fix" the bill. So now what does Madame Speaker do??

I wonder if she can twist enough arms or make enough promises to change the minds of those that voted no on this boondoggle the first time??

How pursuasive is this smarmy woman?? Can she get the job done?? God. Sure hope not.

 

[ACG22]

Hmm, 3 posts and no one discussing the bill. Interesting.

 

[DiamondDave]

As if nobody is discussing the health bill in any number of threads on this board

 

[California Girl]

Hmm, 3 posts and no one discussing the bill. Interesting.

There are hundreds of thread debating the bill. It's much more fun to just slap that bitch.

 

[Sarah G]

Pelosi annoyed on abortion - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com

Speaker Nancy Pelosi got exasperated when asked at her weekly news conference about the unwillingness of some Democrats – including Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) – to support the health bill because of abortion language.

“Let me say this: This is not about abortion! This is a bill about providing quality, affordable health care for all Americans,” she said, more eager than ever to stay on message as her legacy becomes increasingly tied to what happens in the next few weeks.

The speaker had just talked about areas of disagreement between the House and Senate bills that are being worked on as leaders iron out legislative language for a comprehensive package that Congress can pass. But she omitted abortion.

“I will not have it turned into a debate on (abortion),” she said, when asked a follow-up question about Stupak. “Let me say it clearly: we all agree on the three following things. … One is there is no federal funding for abortion. That is the law of the land. It is not changed in this bill. There is no change in the access to abortion. No more or no less: It is abortion neutral in terms of access or diminution of access. And, third, we want to pass a health care bill.”

Stupak went on ABC Thursday morning to say he and 11 colleagues who voted for the earlier version of the House bill will vote ‘no’ this time if abortion language isn’t changed from what’s in the Senate version of the bill.

“Let’s face it, I want to see health care,” Stupak said. “But we’re not going to bypass some principles and beliefs that we feel strongly about."

But Pelosi insisted during her news conference a few hours later that House Democratic members have not come to her with concerns about abortion language.

“As a matter of fact, they haven’t said that to me,” she said.

“You know what? Again, this is the city of (rumors). When people think there isn’t going to be a bill, they can take whatever position they want. But now they know there’s going to be a bill, and these members are saying, ‘let’s talk,’” she said.

Pelosi reiterated her insistence that there shouldn’t be anything controversial about abortion in the new bill.

“So if you believe there should be no federal funding of abortion, and if you believe there should be no change in the policy, and if you believe we need health care for all Americans, we will pass a bill.”

- James Hohmann

If she was annoyed, it was because some people like politico are being deliberately obtuse about it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Pelosi reiterated her insistence that there shouldn’t be anything controversial about abortion in the new bill.

And yet when the government presumes authority to call the shots about what is and what is not health care and who will be required to have health care insurance whether they want it or not, it is relevant to those who care about abortion that it be clear whether health insurance will be required to cover abortion on demand.

And while there are all sorts of legitimate reasons for why health insurance should not be required to cover abortion on demand or ear piercings or tattoo removal or face lifts or anything else that does not constitute medical necessity, there are legitimate reasons to not require health insurance to not cover these things if they want to.

Frankly I don't think Pelosi gives a damn about healthcare or benefits to anybody receiving it or not receiving it. I think Pelosi doesn't want to admit that she can't get a bill passed. At this point I don't think she cares what is or isn't in it.

 

[del]

Pelosi annoyed on abortion - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com

Speaker Nancy Pelosi got exasperated when asked at her weekly news conference about the unwillingness of some Democrats – including Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) – to support the health bill because of abortion language.

“Let me say this: This is not about abortion! This is a bill about providing quality, affordable health care for all Americans,” she said, more eager than ever to stay on message as her legacy becomes increasingly tied to what happens in the next few weeks.

The speaker had just talked about areas of disagreement between the House and Senate bills that are being worked on as leaders iron out legislative language for a comprehensive package that Congress can pass. But she omitted abortion.

“I will not have it turned into a debate on (abortion),” she said, when asked a follow-up question about Stupak. “Let me say it clearly: we all agree on the three following things. … One is there is no federal funding for abortion. That is the law of the land. It is not changed in this bill. There is no change in the access to abortion. No more or no less: It is abortion neutral in terms of access or diminution of access. And, third, we want to pass a health care bill.”

Stupak went on ABC Thursday morning to say he and 11 colleagues who voted for the earlier version of the House bill will vote ‘no’ this time if abortion language isn’t changed from what’s in the Senate version of the bill.

“Let’s face it, I want to see health care,” Stupak said. “But we’re not going to bypass some principles and beliefs that we feel strongly about."

But Pelosi insisted during her news conference a few hours later that House Democratic members have not come to her with concerns about abortion language.

“As a matter of fact, they haven’t said that to me,” she said.

“You know what? Again, this is the city of (rumors). When people think there isn’t going to be a bill, they can take whatever position they want. But now they know there’s going to be a bill, and these members are saying, ‘let’s talk,’” she said.

Pelosi reiterated her insistence that there shouldn’t be anything controversial about abortion in the new bill.

“So if you believe there should be no federal funding of abortion, and if you believe there should be no change in the policy, and if you believe we need health care for all Americans, we will pass a bill.”

- James Hohmann

If she was annoyed, it was because some people like politico are being deliberately obtuse about it.

i saw stupak say straight up that if the language that was in the house bill regarding abortions was not part of the legislation, he and another 10 or 11 democrats would not vote for it. he pointed out that the hyde amendment would not apply to the pending bill because it is an act of congress and not just an appropriations bill. he was so straightforward that even that moron chris williams understood him.

 

[Sarah G]

Pelosi annoyed on abortion - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com

If she was annoyed, it was because some people like politico are being deliberately obtuse about it.

i saw stupak say straight up that if the language that was in the house bill regarding abortions was not part of the legislation, he and another 10 or 11 democrats would not vote for it. he pointed out that the hyde amendment would not apply to the pending bill because it is an act of congress and not just an appropriations bill. he was so straightforward that even that moron chris williams understood him.

Do you think healthcare reform means the government will be paying for abortions?

 

[del]

If she was annoyed, it was because some people like politico are being deliberately obtuse about it.

i saw stupak say straight up that if the language that was in the house bill regarding abortions was not part of the legislation, he and another 10 or 11 democrats would not vote for it. he pointed out that the hyde amendment would not apply to the pending bill because it is an act of congress and not just an appropriations bill. he was so straightforward that even that moron chris williams understood him.

Do you think healthcare reform means the government will be paying for abortions?

if the senate bill is passed, there are specific provisions and requirements for funding abortions. of course, i don't think that bill is health care reform in any meaningful way, so i guess my answer would be no.

fwiw, i'm neither pro-life nor pro-choice, i'm pro- mind my own business.

 

[Valerie]

If she was annoyed, it was because some people like politico are being deliberately obtuse about it.

i saw stupak say straight up that if the language that was in the house bill regarding abortions was not part of the legislation, he and another 10 or 11 democrats would not vote for it. he pointed out that the hyde amendment would not apply to the pending bill because it is an act of congress and not just an appropriations bill. he was so straightforward that even that moron chris williams understood him.

Do you think healthcare reform means the government will be paying for abortions?

It's really just ridiculous semantics.

I posted the some quotes that show the differences in the language that they are complaining about in del's other thread last night.

 

[Valerie]

>

"You will find in there, the federal government would directly subsidize abortions," Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said today. Stupak said he and 11 other House members will not vote for the health care bill unless it includes more stringent language to prevent federal funding from going toward abortion services.

...



Stupak argues that the bill gives taxpayer subsidies to help people buy insurance policies -- and some of those policies can cover abortion.

Also, he points to a provision on page 2075, that says if you choose a policy that covers abortion, you have to pay a dollar a month to pay for the abortion coverage. The insurance policy is supposed to keep that dollar separate, but Stupak says that line will always be blurred.

"Every enrollee in the Office of Personnel management plan, every enrollee has to pay a minimum of $1 per month toward reproductive rights which includes abortion."

But the bill states that enrollees would only pay that $1 abortion fee if they chose a plan that covers abortion, and the bill specifically says that at least one plan must not cover abortion.

However, to anti-abortion advocates in the House, the only acceptable solution is to ban any policy that gets federal money from paying for abortions period. And to most of them, that's just not acceptable.

"There is no federally funded abortion," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said today. Pelosi is urging House Democratic members to pass the president's health care proposal that hews closely to the Senate bill on language restricting federal funding for abortions, but allowing members who buy into an insurance exchange pay for abortions with premiums.

So who is right?

A closer look at the 10 pages or so that deal directly with the question of abortion in the bill -- beginning on page 2069 -- sets out very specific language on funding for abortion.

Pelosi is right in that the bill makes it clear that that no federal money can go for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother.

The language in the Senate health care bill restricts the use of public funds for abortion services. But private insurance plans that are offered in the insurance exchange can cover abortion if funds for the procedure are used only from premiums paid by beneficiaries. States have the option of banning coverage in insurance plans brought in insurance marketplaces.

Health Care Reform: Could Abortion Issue Derail Obama, Democrats Health Care Efforts? - ABC News

 

[Sarah G]

i saw stupak say straight up that if the language that was in the house bill regarding abortions was not part of the legislation, he and another 10 or 11 democrats would not vote for it. he pointed out that the hyde amendment would not apply to the pending bill because it is an act of congress and not just an appropriations bill. he was so straightforward that even that moron chris williams understood him.

Do you think healthcare reform means the government will be paying for abortions?

It's really just ridiculous semantics.

I posted the some quotes that show the differences in the language that they are complaining about in del's other thread last night.

I agree Val. If they want the language changed, they might do it but they are using the Hyde ammendment. Politico is trying to steer this healthcare debate and being underhanded about it.

They can report anything they want of course..

 

[Coyote]

>

"You will find in there, the federal government would directly subsidize abortions," Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said today. Stupak said he and 11 other House members will not vote for the health care bill unless it includes more stringent language to prevent federal funding from going toward abortion services.

...



Stupak argues that the bill gives taxpayer subsidies to help people buy insurance policies -- and some of those policies can cover abortion.

Also, he points to a provision on page 2075, that says if you choose a policy that covers abortion, you have to pay a dollar a month to pay for the abortion coverage. The insurance policy is supposed to keep that dollar separate, but Stupak says that line will always be blurred.

"Every enrollee in the Office of Personnel management plan, every enrollee has to pay a minimum of $1 per month toward reproductive rights which includes abortion."

But the bill states that enrollees would only pay that $1 abortion fee if they chose a plan that covers abortion, and the bill specifically says that at least one plan must not cover abortion.

However, to anti-abortion advocates in the House, the only acceptable solution is to ban any policy that gets federal money from paying for abortions period. And to most of them, that's just not acceptable.

"There is no federally funded abortion," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said today. Pelosi is urging House Democratic members to pass the president's health care proposal that hews closely to the Senate bill on language restricting federal funding for abortions, but allowing members who buy into an insurance exchange pay for abortions with premiums.

So who is right?

A closer look at the 10 pages or so that deal directly with the question of abortion in the bill -- beginning on page 2069 -- sets out very specific language on funding for abortion.

Pelosi is right in that the bill makes it clear that that no federal money can go for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother.

The language in the Senate health care bill restricts the use of public funds for abortion services. But private insurance plans that are offered in the insurance exchange can cover abortion if funds for the procedure are used only from premiums paid by beneficiaries. States have the option of banning coverage in insurance plans brought in insurance marketplaces.

Health Care Reform: Could Abortion Issue Derail Obama, Democrats Health Care Efforts? - ABC News

It sounds like the crux of the argument is: But private insurance plans that are offered in the insurance exchange can cover abortion if funds for the procedure are used only from premiums paid by beneficiaries.

So...they want to prevent even using private moneys for funding of abortion?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Progressives are strange evil people. They not only want abortions "freely" available, they want to force women to have abortions and make the rest of us pay for them. An aborted fetus is all they care about.

 

[Foxfyre]

Progressives are strange evil people. They not only want abortions "freely" available, they want to force women to have abortions and make the rest of us pay for them. An aborted fetus is all they care about.

Come on AG, I don't believe that and I don't think you do either. I am passionately pro life but I accept that there are circumstances in which abortion is indicated. And while I think Roe v Wade should be much better implemented and enforced as intended, and there is never an excuse for a late term abortion that is anything other than a medical emergency, I would not vote to ban abortion for any reason whatsoever.

For you to make such a broad statement about Progressives sounds as looney tunes as do the pro-choicers when they accuse people like me of wanting to deny women their rights, invade their privacy and their wombs, and force children into terrible situations, etc. etc. etc.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Pelosi annoyed on abortion - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com

Speaker Nancy Pelosi got exasperated when asked at her weekly news conference about the unwillingness of some Democrats – including Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) – to support the health bill because of abortion language.

“Let me say this: This is not about abortion! This is a bill about providing quality, affordable health care for all Americans,” she said, more eager than ever to stay on message as her legacy becomes increasingly tied to what happens in the next few weeks.

The speaker had just talked about areas of disagreement between the House and Senate bills that are being worked on as leaders iron out legislative language for a comprehensive package that Congress can pass. But she omitted abortion.

“I will not have it turned into a debate on (abortion),” she said, when asked a follow-up question about Stupak. “Let me say it clearly: we all agree on the three following things. … One is there is no federal funding for abortion. That is the law of the land. It is not changed in this bill. There is no change in the access to abortion. No more or no less: It is abortion neutral in terms of access or diminution of access. And, third, we want to pass a health care bill.”

Stupak went on ABC Thursday morning to say he and 11 colleagues who voted for the earlier version of the House bill will vote ‘no’ this time if abortion language isn’t changed from what’s in the Senate version of the bill.

“Let’s face it, I want to see health care,” Stupak said. “But we’re not going to bypass some principles and beliefs that we feel strongly about."

But Pelosi insisted during her news conference a few hours later that House Democratic members have not come to her with concerns about abortion language.

“As a matter of fact, they haven’t said that to me,” she said.

“You know what? Again, this is the city of (rumors). When people think there isn’t going to be a bill, they can take whatever position they want. But now they know there’s going to be a bill, and these members are saying, ‘let’s talk,’” she said.

Pelosi reiterated her insistence that there shouldn’t be anything controversial about abortion in the new bill.

“So if you believe there should be no federal funding of abortion, and if you believe there should be no change in the policy, and if you believe we need health care for all Americans, we will pass a bill.”

- James Hohmann

You think she's being a bitch and pissed off right now...wait until the healthcare bill doesn't pass...

 

[PatekPhilippe]

>

Health Care Reform: Could Abortion Issue Derail Obama, Democrats Health Care Efforts? - ABC News

It sounds like the crux of the argument is: But private insurance plans that are offered in the insurance exchange can cover abortion if funds for the procedure are used only from premiums paid by beneficiaries.

So...they want to prevent even using private moneys for funding of abortion?

No. Then only rich people could have abortions. Why? Private insurance premiums are going to skyrocket under this legislative failure called ObamaCare.