The Parliamentarian from the days of the '95 budget reconciliation bill said he rejected an abortion provision because it was policy and not fiscal. However, as he said, Frumkin is now the Parliamentarian and it will be up to him to decide.

The preferred approach would be a rubber hose. That is The President after careful research brings them into the oval office one at a time and explains to them how is going to destroy them if they don't fall in line on this one.

It is frightening that a single (irrational, power hungry, or just plain nuts) politician can bring an entire nation to a halt.

Perhaps that "rubber hose" could be connected to a High Colonic Machine.

Of the supposed 12 that want some abortion language, how many are just being jackasses. One thing I have learned from this nightmare is plenty of people say things that they simply don't mean.

Just because we given them what they want doesn't mean we will get what we want.

This whole thing is nonsense. Into every relevant federal bill goes the standard language that there will be no federal funding of abortion. There does not need to be any further language in order to accomplish what Stupid says he wants. What he's looking for is to further control what a woman does with her body with her own private funds. This C Street guy is a piece of work.

Obama and the leadership need to have a few make-or-break votes. Health care at this point is one of them. And women are the Democratic base (he says as a man..)

Stupak crosses the party, cut him out.

Constantly chasing the "center" and compromising is killing the image. A President laying down the law and daring Stupak to cross it would do a lot for his image with the base. And almost anyone would bet that Stupak might cross it, but few of the others would.

And the White House could pretty credibly primary the guy.

Amazing that a supposed 'Democrat' threatens to tank HCR (and sentence tens of thousands to die each year for lack of it) over personal issues regarding what is a legal, protected procedure.

Of course, that is what is reported to be the reason. What is likely the real reason is that Stupak and those who act like him are really DINOs; they'd find some other ostensible 'reason' to vote against HCR if it wasn't abortion.

More and better Democrats, please.

Now that Stupak has been exposed as one of the mentors for the C Street family, and that his rent has been subsidized by 'somebody' (unknown) I very much doubt if there is anyway of talking sense to this man.

The main problem is that feminists have squandered decades by failing to come up with arguments that might persuade people who don't automatically see things their way on abortion and by only using arguments that work with other feminists, while treating people who have the slightest doubt about its morality with condescension and contempt. This despite the fact that polls show that over 60% of Americans regard abortion as inherently immoral.

It is possible to get people who are anti abortion to view abortion differently. For example, it is not well known that Dr. Tiller the Kansas abortionist who was murdered, contrary to right-wing propaganda, had strict criteria under which he would terminate a pregnancy that specified what medical conditions he thought justified the procedure. When people understand that he wasn't just doing it for the money it tends to take the steam out of their self righteousness.

But what really brings abortion opponents up short and gets them thinking is pointing out the consequences of over population in terms of its potential for resource wars in a world full of nuclear arms and the plain reality that people are just not going to stop having sex. What happens when the world starts running out of oil in earnest?

Feminists prefer to use arguments like, "a woman has a right to control her own body," which is a kick-ass argument if you're talking to a feminst who already believes that. Unfortunately it leavees pretty much everybody else cold.

Intellectually, feminismts tend to be a regrettably insular bunch. Until they learn to reach out to people who aren't already on the same page, you can expect more Stupak-like problems in the future because, thanks to their political bungling, they've ensured that abortion remains an easy target for conservatives.

What I want to know is: what is the over/under on the number of Reepubelican Senators that will vote for the reconcilliation part of the bill, once it's clear it will pass?

Into every relevant federal bill goes the standard language that there will be no federal funding of abortion. There does not need to be any further language in order to accomplish what Stupid says he wants. What he's looking for is to further control what a woman does with her body with her own private funds.

That and he really doesn't want HCR to pass.

But what really brings abortion opponents up short and gets them thinking is pointing out the consequences of over population in terms of its potential for resource wars in a world full of nuclear arms and the plain reality that people are just not going to stop having sex. What happens when the world starts running out of oil in earnest?

I'd like to see some documentation of this. It strikes me as an argument that is remarkably unlikely to change the mind of anyone who believes in full personhood at conception.

Intellectually, feminismts tend to be a regrettably insular bunch.

As insular as people who actually believe that "feminism" is monolithic? Or that everyone who's pro-choice self-identifies as feminist (or, perhaps, as your definition of feminist)?

No one in the media is challenging Stupak on the facts, though. Not NPR, not even Rachel Maddow.

Shame on us.

Doc: What I want to know is: what is the over/under on the number of Reepubelican Senators that will vote for the reconcilliation part of the bill, once it's clear it will pass?

Answer: Zero.

Judging from today's news that methane is being released from under the melting permafrost in the Arctic in much greater quantities than expected, it's pretty unlikely that any persons saved by Stupak's position will continue living to a normal life expectancy. That would include his grandchildren. Climate change is real, human caused, and has probably already hit the 'tipping point'. Mass extinction means Stupak and you.

Good for you Steve. It's not the House progressives who are the problem here, despite the tenor of some the leading liberal blogs over the pasts few months. Progressives have problems with this bill but they're all voting for it. Lets remember that the next time the Dem leadership goes to war on its base.

"What I want to know is: what is the over/under on the number of Reepubelican Senators that will vote for the reconcilliation part of the bill, once it's clear it will pass?" - Doc

I'm going with seven, and two Democrats and one 'Connecticut for LIEberman' not voting for reconcilation.

"I'd like to see some documentation of this. It strikes me as an argument that is remarkably unlikely to change the mind of anyone who believes in full personhood at conception." - Shortstop

If personhood starts at conception than God is responsible for the murder of half of the Human Race because half of all conceptions either fail to implant or naturally miscarry which should be chalked up as a design flaw by the "Intelligence Designer".

As I have said before ... I have been in Stupak's district a lot. 25 % of his district is > 65 yrs old. THis is not a district that is well represented by a guy who seems so focused on the abortion issue.

Yesterday on NPR the interviewer asked [in a rather odd way, I have to admit] about how he felt about trading health care for 30 million people for the issue of abortion. I truly don't think Stupak understand that he was making that tradeoff...

And its over WORDING of already strong language ... jeesh.

Those of you who think Bart Stupak will be afraid of a primary challenge don't understand Michigan.

Stupak's district covers the entire Upper Peninsula (UP) and the northern tip of the Lower Peninsula. People who live in these areas are fiercely independent and stubborn. It is also very hard hit economically which is why there is a Democrat there. However, there is not a lot of affection up there for "Ann Arbor Liberals" (like me).

If indeed Stupak votes against the health care reconciliation, despite its terrible impact on his district, there will be a tendency to blame the "liberals" for not compromising and there is likely to be a lot of admiration for Stupak's "independent stand."

Stupak's next campagn slogan:

A chicken in every pot and a coat hanger for every woman of childbearing age!

If personhood starts at conception than God is responsible for the murder of half of the Human Race because half of all conceptions either fail to implant or naturally miscarry which should be chalked up as a design flaw by the "Intelligence Designer".

Well, I'm not particularly good at getting into the anti-choice mind (though I've received some illuminating coaching from my husband, who grew up in an evangelical family), but I believe they play by one set of rules for their god and another for humanity. In any case, I really doubt that concerns about global resources are going to move this crowd, most of whom are motivated by a religious argument, with a few non-religious outliers in their camp.

Those of you who think Bart Stupak will be afraid of a primary challenge don't understand Michigan.

This is right -- Stupak's in that seat until he pops off or otherwise decides to vacate it.

Steve (or anyone)... does anyone have the URLs (or cut/pastes) of where I can read the particular abortion language in BOTH bills? To compare and contrast the two. I want to see the ambiguity. Thanks.

Why are there Stupaks in this land?

Read Katha Pollitt this week in The Nation...the US is between Lithuania and Namibia in the Global Gender Gap report of the World Economic Forum...

The US is a backwater province when it comes to women's rights on this planet, which accounts also for clowns who say that when women think they should control their own bodies it's an 'insular' argument. What a dickwad -- literally.

How about before conceding anything the leadership gets Stupak to name his alleged allies rather than letting them hide in anonymity? Good lord...it really isn't that hard. It would also help if House leadership drops the charade that abortion language is the reason that Stupak isn't voting for the bill.

AP reports:

Rep. Diana DeGette, a prominent abortion rights supporter, said Pelosi should call Stupak's bluff.

"Ten or 11 votes is not going to kill the bill," said DeGette, D-Colo., explaining that many of the 39 conservative Democrats who voted against the House bill could well find the moderate Senate version more to their liking.

Stupak's amendment is UNCONSTITUTIONAL;. Per the 14th amendment Religious beliefs cannot be imposed on the American People. Stupak represents the government and is imoposing his religious belifs of Roman Cathoicism, admits he is doing it and is supported by Roman Catholic bishops. Foisting his religious Beliefs is UNCONSTITUTIONAL . Stupak should use his energy on supporting Gun Control

Stupak's amendment is UNCONSTITUTIONAL;. Per the 14th amendment Religious beliefs cannot be imposed on the American People. Stupak represents the government and is imoposing his religious belifs of Roman Cathoicism, admits he is doing it and is supported by Roman Catholic bishops. Foisting his religious Beliefs is UNCONSTITUTIONAL . Stupak should use his energy on supporting Gun Control

It is frightening that a single (irrational, power hungry, or just plain nuts) politician is being allowed to shove his religious beliefs down the throats of other Americans. I'm glad Mjohnston's comments were posted twice because it is an important point that needs to be repeated.

Some genuinely nice stuff on this site, I enjoy it.