Via Brian Beutler, Stupak has a narrative and he's sticking to it. He tells Chris Good at The Atlantic:
They're the ones--and I've been saying all along, all I want to do is vote on my conscience, let the will of the House work its way--they're the ones who insisted, 'No, Stupak doesn't get to go in the manager's amendment, we want it on the floor.' They're the ones who insisted on bringing it to a vote. They're the ones who wanted to vote against me, they were the ones who said they would win this vote. Now they lose, and now they're distorting the hell out of the amendment. That's the part that bothers most of us. They're the ones who wanted the amendment. We had an agreement with the Speaker. They rejected it, and then they took it to the floor and they lost, and now suddenly I'm the bad person....
If they hadn't rejected the Speaker on Friday night, to use their words, there would have been a less restrictive amendment that would have been part of the manager's amendment. They rejected that. They could not live with it. Even the less restrictive language
Stupak also displays a stunning lack of understanding about what his legislation actually does, and what the original language, the Capps amendment did, to maintain Hyde. Particularly deceptive is his assertion that "There is no greater restriction placed on anyone."
There's very much a greater restriction placed on those women whose employers might currently be offering insurance coverage, which is very likely to include abortion coverage, and decide to move into the exchange for a better deal. those women are very likely to lose coverage, because the chances are pretty good, they or someone else in their plan with them will be getting a federal subsidy to help with coverage. How many might it be? Potentially millions
Of the 21 million people in the exchanges, 86 percent are expected to be receiving direct federal subsidies. It would be an oversimplification to say that this means 86 percent of women in the exchanges would be blocked from insurance coverage that includes abortion (it will almost certainly be more than that). But it is safe to say that the vast majority of, if not all, women in the exchanges will not be allowed to have abortion coverage in their benefits packages. These will be almost exclusively poor and middle-class women.
And their ranks are likely to grow. Over time, the reform packages under consideration allow ever larger employers to participate in the exchange, which will happen if the exchange keeps premiums down. "As employers go into the exchange over time...more and more women will be subject to these new rules," says Jessica Arons, who directs the Women's Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress.
"Coming from an employer plan that's likely to cover abortion...they're going to be losing coverage going into the exchange, either because they'll need an affordability credit, or because there'll be such a disincentive to cover abortion that insurance companies won't do it," Arons adds.
As for Stupak's assertion that he really only wants to see Hyde maintained, check out his real intentions what he offered in Energy and Commerce as this provision:
A day before the bill passed out of committee, Stupak co-sponsored, and voted for an amendment written by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA)--distinct from the now notorious "Stupak amendment"--that would have limited the government's ability to include abortions in benefits plans to cases of incest, life of the mother, and forcible rape.
The Pitts amendment actually passed, 31-27, with the support of several Democrats and all Republicans. But the "forcible" language--legally significant--was a bridge too far.
In a parliamentary maneuver, chairman Henry Waxman actually voted "aye", according to a House aide, in order to retain the prerogative of bringing it up for a second, unsuccessful vote. Between votes, Waxman conferred with some of the bill's Democratic supporters to convince them to help shoot it down.
Forcible rape only, no date rape, no marital rape, no Roman-Polanski style rape. Presumably because a girl or woman in any non-forcible rape situation would have been "asking for it" anyway. Which leads to another question--how in the hell would that be enforcable? A woman would have to provide a police report with her insurance claim? Bart Stupak isn't only a misogynist, he's a piss poor legislator.
