UPDATE Looks like there is already a great diary on this; my apologies for the duplication. Please find your way over to Wordie's diary here: http://www.dailykos.com/...
Obviously, the best way to beat Stupak is to get it removed in conference or otherwise stricken from the bill entirely. But you know Congress. HCR IS going to pass, in one form or another. So let's assume worst case scenario - HCR passes, Stupak stays in. Then what?
I'm reading over the text of the Stupak Amendment, and trying to game out different work arounds to beat it. You guys are good at this sort of thing, so I figured I'd post it up here and ask for a hand.
Here's the text of the amendment: http://documents.nytimes.com/...
Possible workaround strategies below the fold... please contribute!
This is just a brainstorming session, so I'm just encouraging people to start throwing out ideas. If it's an idea that won't work, please let us know! If we toss enough ideas out there, and work together to nix the ones that won't work for reasons that others of us might not have been aware of, we might come up with something that'll work to beat this amendment.
Essentially, the amendment says: no funds authorized or appropriated by this AHCAA can be used to cover any abortion or to pay for any part of any insurance plan that provides abortions, except for physical injury, illness, or disorder that would place the woman in danger of death as a result of the pregnancy; OR in the case of rape or incest.
It then goes on to specify that optional plans CAN be offered by providers, as long as they don't use money from the plan, or money from premiums on a plan that also gets affordability credits, or "non-federal funds required to recieve a federal payment, including contribution of matching medicare funds."
So how CAN we fund abortions?
Here's a thought - can Dem legislators offer a brand new and independant bill providing specific subsidies for these "abortion riders?" That is money that would not come from the AHCAA act (and I suppose should not be called "affordability credits" to ensure it doesn't get tangled up with Stupak anyway). It seems to me that something like this could also get pushed through reconciliation, if need be, though I may be reading that wrong.
Look, I'm pro-life. I genuinely believe that human life starts at conception, for completely non-religious reasons that I won't even bother distracting us with, because even as a (sane) pro-lifer, I recognize that this amendment does nothing but screw non-affluent women. And I don't know how likely this amendment is to get stricken from the bill, because bottom line is, Obama needs this bill and in many ways so do we - and they know that. If we can pull the teeth out of it by feeding our legislators a good work around, we can take the advantage back and pass health care with a clear conscience.
Ok - ideas go!