Claire McCaskill needs to read the Stupak-Pitts amendment.
Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", McCaskill was asked whether an amendment added by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) to the House's legislation would be too bitter a pill to pass the Senate.
"I am not sure that it is," replied the Missouri Democrat. "Obviously, I have been a pro-choice candidate for my entire political career, and obviously there is controversy always surrounding this issue. But we are talking about whether or not people that get public money can buy an insurance policy that has a coverage for abortion. And that is not the majority of America. The majority of America is not going to be getting subsidies from the government...."
That's a rather simplified view of what this amendment actually does, although it's quite handy to keep parroting the Blue Dog line that this is really nothing more than Hyde.
McCaskill also needs to talk with her pro-choice colleagues in the House who take a far less sanguine view of this legislation. In a letter to Nancy Pelosi, a draft of which was provided to Greg Sargent, 41 House Democrats are pledging to vote against a final bill if it contains this amendment.
A source sends over a working copy of the letter without the signatories, and a source says it currently bears the signatures of 41 House Dems. They’re all vowing to vote No on a bill if it contains the Stupak amendment — enough to sink the bill:
As members of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women’s access to reproductive health services.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health servicesto which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.
That’s unequivocal, with no wiggle room. The Washington Post reported this morning that Rep. Diana DeGette had collected 40 signatures vowing a No vote, without noting the language of their vow or how this would be communicated.
Lest you question to productivity of any group drawing a line in the sand over must-pass legislation, consider that the public option would have been dead months ago had not the Progressive Block done the same. This is a critical bargaining position, and members have to show that they are willing to walk away over these deal-breakers. That's how Coathanger Stupak got this amendment into the bill in the first place.
Harry Reid needs to take this threat just as seriously as Nancy Pelosi does, and keep this amendment (which Ben Nelson and Bob Casey are already working on) out of the Senate bill.