Skip to main content

Yes No Maybe
Here's some interesting and revealing news about House Republicans:
Last week, the whining was over defunding Planned Parenthood as a condition of keeping the government open. Last night, the Republicans returned to it. NBC News producer Shawna Thomas sent notice of a new measure that would do exactly that. It's a correction of the spending bill that would insert this language: "None of the funds made available by this Act may be made available for any purpose to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. or any affiliate of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc."

Filed by Congresswomen Martha Roby (R-Alabama) and Diane Black (R-Tennessee), the measure has little chance of passing, Shawna reports. But what's amazing is the relentless pursuit of that single conservative goal.

This tells you quite a lot, really, about the people with whom Democrats are supposed to "seek compromise." A deal is cut to keep the government running, in which Democrats make major concessions on spending cuts and Republicans make concessions on their single-minded drive for social warfare. Democrats then help deliver up legislative language on specific cuts that can meet their end of the bargain, and Republicans deliver up... legislative language that says they were just kidding after all, and seeking to "correct" the deal after the fact.

Now, in order for this to work, it'd have to be brought to the floor for a vote and pass in both houses. It's said that such a measure has little chance of passing. But is that a sure thing? I suppose there's some hope that the House Republican leadership would honor the spirit of their deal by refusing to bring this resolution to the floor there. But it'll be interesting to watch what happens, because this measure very clearly lives within the letter of the agreement, but still offers the opportunity to wiggle around it.

Consider that the deal that cleared the way for keeping the government open actually does guarantee a Senate floor vote on defunding language. If the House passes the fully-year continuing appropriations bill agreed to under the deal—that is, one that does not contain the defunding language in the text— it lives within the bounds of the agreement. And if the House should then pass H. Con. Res. 36, as prior votes on bills containing such defunding language suggest it might, it would do so without violating the agreement with the White House. That is, they will have passed an appropriations bill that was free of the defunding language as agreed, but then also have passed a separate measure instructing the Clerk to reinsert that language after the fact.

At that point, Senate Republicans will be ready to collect on their payoff in this deal: a free, guaranteed, up-or-down vote on defunding language. And if they choose to hold that vote on H. Con. Res. 36, and they should manage to find a majority for it, then the full-year continuing appropriations bill goes to President Obama's desk with the defunding language in it despite the deal, and the choice will then be between a veto and a shutdown, or... another "compromise."

Remember, the terms of the deal guarantee a vote in the Senate. A filibuster breaks the deal. That's not to say it wouldn't be done. But it breaks the deal.

By the way, H. Con. Res. 36 isn't the only "correction" that's been introduced. H. Con. Res. 35 defunds the Affordable Care Act. Both resolutions are scheduled for hearings before the House Rules Committee today at 5 PM ET (watch here).

In case you were wondering about this "corrections" business and where it came from, you can probably thank Bart Stupak for reminding Republicans that this trick could be used for sneaking abortion provisions in under the wire.

I'm sure the folks at Planned Parenthood of Maryland will be pleased to know that their money (because it's "fungible") is now paying Stupak's salary.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by Abortion.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So, I assume the Senate can also issue corrections (13+ / 0-)

    A correction that carried interest is taxed as ordinary income, not capital gains, might result in someone's chain being pulled, and pulled hard.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 10:55:55 AM PDT

  •  I ont think ts not about passing the PP defunding. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iberian, PsychoSavannah

    Its about riling up the base and fundraising off of the PP issue.

    Dems too are in full fundraising mode with this issue.

    In fact, my guess is that both parties saw a nice spike in fundraising, so why not allow the issue to purcolate back up again?

    No home. No job. No peace. No rest.

    by A Runner on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:01:19 AM PDT

  •  Bills of Attainder are unconstitutional. (0+ / 0-)

    IIRC, the Republican caucus in the House took a pledge to not introduce any bills unless they were supported by specific language in the Constitution.  So much for Republican pledges.

    Barack Obama in the Oval Office: There's a black man who knows his place.

    by Greasy Grant on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:01:33 AM PDT

  •  I should think (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    billlaurelMD, drmah, wsexson

    that since the deal would be broken in the House if those corrections are included -- the Senate Democrats should be perfectly in the clear to filibuster.

    In addition, this shenanigans appears to have made it impossible for a 72 hour posting of the bill prior to voting.

    Let's hope this is yet another in a long string of lessons that negotiating with these fanatics is useless -- and no concessions should be offered re: the debt ceiling (not holding my breath).

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:02:29 AM PDT

    •  The spirit, yes. Not the letter. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gchaucer2, Iberian, pgm 01, princesspat

      The House agreed to pass a continuing appropriations bill clean of Planned Parenthood defunding language, and it will do that.

      Then later, it will pass a separate measure that would "correct" the enrollment of that continuing appropriations bill.

      The Senate will then have the opportunity to do the same. If they do, then the effect of H. Con. Res. 36 will be to add the defunding language into the appropriations bill as if it had been there all along, even though the House will never have voted on the appropriations bill with that language in there.

      That surely violates the spirit of the agreement, but the House will have met the letter of it.

      •  Thank you. (0+ / 0-)

        " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

        by gchaucer2 on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:10:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What is the correction being made? Is this simply (0+ / 0-)

        a proceudre allowing additional amendments to the bill,  which would be factually inaccurate, or is this a procedure which by design allows a different bill to be moved forward and enrolled although the bill was passed in different form. What is the justification for doing this, other than a parliamentary means of breading a deal?

  •  We've discussed this many times here on DKos (0+ / 0-)

    And, from what I see, the vast majority of the people that post here (even some of the more "moderate" people) know just what a great organization Planned Parenthood has been throughout the years and is now.  It does receive some funding from the government.  It gets funding from organizations and individuals as well.  The birth control councelling and assistance alone saves hundreds of thousands of unwanted pregnancies.  In addition, it provides a huge amount of help to individuals that have contracted HIV with no where to go for assistance.

    Yes, abortion assistance is offered and yes, since there is some taxpayer money going to Planned Parenthood, there can be a case made that taxpayer money is going for abortions.  

    This needs to be looked at in a far bigger arena.  Just having one particular focus to try to defund this important social agency is ludicrous.  Even Jesse Helms was in favor of abortion in some circumstances.  

    I hope we don't lose our public resolve on this one.  I would like to see what the public at large truly feels on this after being given ALL of the facts.

  •  total assholes (0+ / 0-)

    Talk about wasting taxpayer dollars!

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:06:39 AM PDT

  •  Bill of Attainder (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm sorry, but isn't the language a Bill of Attainder.  Congress can not single out  an individual or organization for special treatment.

  •  The Failure of Previous Great Civilizations (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChemBob, Matt Z

    The Incas, Mayans, Toltecs, Greek, Roman, Persia... and on and on?

    WHERE are they now?

    They're long gone.. and I'm confident cursory research will indicate the reason why they are gone is either because of gross stupidity and/or too much war.

    In our case, it is both.

    look folks; one not be Einstein to see we can't continue to make massively stupid mistakes like getting rid of Planned Parenthood... all while FULLY funding 2-3-4-5 wars... it's ignorant, and FAIL will be the end result.

    "I don't feel the change yet". Velma Hart

    by Superpole on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:09:00 AM PDT

  •  Of course it will never happen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but Reid should tell Boehner to shove it until that language comes out. And, he should charge a patience penalty to bring funding up for WIC. Every time they pull one of these stunts, charge them for it.

    •  It IS out. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kj in missouri, gchaucer2, anagram, pgm 01

      That's the problem. They'll pass the appropriations bill without the language, then pass a separate resolution directing the Clerk of the House to put the language back in if the Senate agrees.

      Then it's up to the Senate, and the terms of the "deal" guarantee a vote.

      •  Motion to table the resolution (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        drmah, anagram, pgm 01

        Dem should simply motion to table to resolution, thereby killing it forever. It also keeps their part of the bargain, no filibuster.

        Why do they agree to crap like this?

        •  It's an idea. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anagram, tvanel

          Of course, it's not a vote on defunding, so I'm not sure Republicans would agree that it lives up to the terms of the deal.

          I don't know that they won't do such a thing regardless, though.

          Or offer a 60-vote threshold for passage. That'd be the same in effect as a filibuster, but it'd still be a vote directly on the measure. That'd meet the terms, too.

          •  Ah 60 vote threshold (0+ / 0-)

            Didnt think that could be done without a filibuster. That would in effect place equal pressure on GOP moderates like Snowe, Collins and Brown.

            I dont know why Harry hasn't been applying pressure on the three senators named above with tough votes. Oh wait, our side sucks at politics and overall messaging.

            I suspect that we would lose a few Dem votes (Nelson and Manchin come to mind)

  •  See what happens when you.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Believe the GOP

    Negotiate with terrorists

    Unfortunately these kids are a political party here in the lovely US of A.

    Lincoln must be turning in his grave by now. Liberals, fighting the conservative way since 1776...

    by Final Frame on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:09:40 AM PDT

  •  Couldn't the Senate (0+ / 0-)

    Pass the bill with only the agreed upon language and send the entire thing to conference committee? From Dictatorship to Democracy, Guide to Non Violent Protests. Because your sig should include a link that will get it banned in China.

    by sdelear on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:12:10 AM PDT

  •  When people plan to have children, (0+ / 0-)

    they're more likely to value them more and less likely to make them available to be sacrificed as "fungible" troops.

    Conservatives are very literal people.  When they say they opposed planned parenthood, they mean it.  Subconsciously, many probably fear that they never would have been born if their parents had had a choice.  So, the concept of planning is upsetting and insecurity generating.  
    Remember how antagonistic these same people were to the Soviet's five year plans.  And then land-use plans?  Very likely, people who exist in the ineffable present and go by what they can plainly see with their own two eyes, aren't keen on making plans for a future they do not visualize.  Remember Bush One and "the vision thing"?  If they can't see it, it doesn't exist.  
    On the other hand, and this may seem contradictory, what they see in their mind's eye is reality.  If they can see (imagine) it, it's as good as done.  That's how the mission in Iraq was accomplished before it had hardly begun.

    Why do people who depend on the sense of sight misinterpret reality?  Because appearances are deceiving.  So, it's best to fall back on intent--like Jon Kyle not lying because he didn't intend to make a factual statement.  Self-deception is a wondrous thing to behold.

    by hannah on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:15:10 AM PDT

  •  you gotta hand it to the repubs. they are pit- (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, Jesterfox

    randi rhodes did a turnabout "what if" game yesterday that was quite brilliant...what if we were talking about unmarried men and unborn sperm-"children?"  
    she thought that all young men should have vasectomies, and only when they were married would they be allowed to reverse them...
    we have to turn this debate around, from female to male.  kristin schaal has done a good job on TDS.  we need more voices like hers.

    Say No to Frankenfish

    by stagemom on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:16:58 AM PDT

  •  Some details of the 'compromise': $38 Billion (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChemBob, ctsteve

    This is some of what was cut:

    – Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): $504 million

    – State and local law enforcement: $415 million

    – Community oriented policing services (COPS): $296 million

    – Green jobs innovation fund: $40 million

    – Community health centers: $600 million

    – Dislocated worker assistance: $125 million

    – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA): $45 million

    – Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): $49 million

    – IDEA (special education): $16 million

    – Infectious disease prevention: $277 million

    – National Institutes of Health: $260 million

    And this will help economic growth, how? And create jobs, how?

    Color me disgusted.

    "Say little; do much." (Pirkei Avot: 1:15)

    by hester on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 11:19:38 AM PDT

  •  but it's a WIN!!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Apost8, mchestnutjr, Jesterfox

    Don't you see, David, the President won?!?

    he kept the government open. and, he compromised. And since he says reproductive rights are only "an unrelated social issue" who cares if women can't access abortion or reproductive health services. It's an unrelated social issue and plus it's a win for the president. Who, i remind you, is awesome.

    Above all, stop talking down about our President.  He is the only thing standing in the way of the Republicans. You are damaging his re-election. Also, the president is powerless, and it was the best deal he could get. He told me so.

    Also, too, 11th dimension chess.  

  •  Tea Baggers are going to move one step too far off (0+ / 0-)

    the cliff.  This might not be the final issue that sends them over the edge, but they are getting very close to losing the entire game.

  •  Jon 'I am a Liar' Kyl will fight you on the (0+ / 0-)

    beaches.....(just to make a point)

  •  Abortion Victory (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Any legislative move to limit abortion is seen as a victory for pro-lifers on their march to criminalizing abortion.

    What gets me is that republicans LOVE to use the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings as the basis for all arguments...unless they disagree.

  •  A Republican who is speaking (0+ / 0-)

    is lying.  No maybe, no sometimes - if it is a republican and it's lips are moving, it is lying.

  •  I want to know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    how those baby-lovin' arseholes can defund the women they are so anxious to keep pregnant?  I know they have no use for children once they are born, but you'd think they could at least be consistent enough to not start starving them in utero.

  •  Wait- isn't that a Bill of Attainder? (0+ / 0-)

    Certainly we've been down this road on their other defunding attempts...

    -this space for rent-

    by EsnRedshirt on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:44:36 PM PDT

  •  sdiebar: CA files brief defense of HCR (0+ / 0-)

    Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Files Brief in Defense of Health Care Reform

    by Kamala D. Harris on Tuesday, April 12, 2011

    We simply can't afford to let the opportunity to send a progressive leader like Debra Bowen to DC pass us by; she has courage to stand up to the special interests and the record to back it up. ~ Former Gov. Howard Dean M.D.

    by anyname on Tue Apr 12, 2011 at 12:59:18 PM PDT

  •  This was the deal, no? (0+ / 0-)

    A separate, up-or-down vote on defunding planned parenthood.

    How is this not exactly that?

    •  It is that. (0+ / 0-)

      As far as the Senate is concerned. But I have a feeling that some of the parties to the deal might have thought the idea was for the Senate to vote on a free-standing measure that would go nowhere, rather than something designed to actually try to change the text of the continuing appropriations bill.

      There's also some dispute over whether or not guaranteeing a vote means guaranteeing an up-or-down, majority wins vote, versus a vote held under a unanimous consent agreement requiring 60 votes to pass.

  •  This Is All More Symbolic Than Substantive (0+ / 0-)

    Among Planned Parenthood's patients only a fraction, probably around 20% or less, depending on the state and clinic, are paid for with federal dollars: Medicaid, Title X, and certain other categories. The rest, fully 80%+ are covered by private insurance, patients funds, or private donations. No one is turned away because of a lack of funds or not being qualified for government support. But. if Republican efforts to "defund" PP were successful, the victims would be low income women, not Planned Parenthood. And abortions, for which the federal government provides no money, would still be done and in increasing numbers since federal money for birth control and family planning would be cut off. It would be like cutting off access to fire hydrants for the fire department to reduce fires. The move makes no sense at all.

    One can say, as some have above, that this is all about firing up the Republican base, which is certainly true. But the idiots in Congress also really truly believe this stuff. They're probably convinced that PP bills for fictional services to obtain federal money for abortions, which is absurd. PP affiliates, the local non-profit corporations that run the clinics, are audited and inspected annually not just by state authorities but also by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), and the later inspections and audits are stricter than anything the government does. PPFA's most valuable asset is the name and it's not about to jeopardize that for the sake a few ill-gotten dollars.

    •  This is part of a larger plan. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The rest, fully 80%+ are covered by private insurance, patients funds, or private donations.

      And now, you've led us to a discussion of the many problems with H.R. 3, the effect of which would likely be that nearly all private insurance plans would drop their coverage for abortion.

  •  Attacking PP Is the Everliving Phoenix (0+ / 0-)

    We will see this attack in one shape or another re-surface, again and again. It will be found as a lever, a poison pill, a hidden bomb, or other device in every major, and some minor, congressional bill over the next 20+ months. The specifics of the attack may change but it will spring to life like a phoenix after every defeat until either the Republicans succeed, or they lose the elections of November '12 big time. Congressional Democrats need to be prepared to read every bill the Republicans introduce during this Congress or the Republicans might just succeed.

    In some ways, our greatest concern, however, should be focussed on action at the state level. The most egregious and hateful bills are likely to be found there and given the parochial nature of state politics, such menacing hate-filled moves are more likely to gain traction in state capitals than in Washington. Admittedly such actions, when successful, may affect only one state, but state legislators are noted mimics and like to copy each other, and will, if they think success has been achieved elsewhere. So watch the action in your statehouse. Much mischief on women's health care is to be found there.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site