I’m going to make a prediction: if the Stupak Amendment passes today, it will end up in the bill. There’s a rumor going around that the President personally promised Henry Waxman that he would work to get the language out of the bill in the conference committee. But that’s the message being spread around to get pro-choice liberals to vote for the bill. It’s as meaningless as “we’ll get you a single payer amendment” and just as effective. To borrow a phrase from my moviemaking days, this is the equivalent of “we’ll fix it in post.”
This language is not in any of the Senate bills, but pro-life Harry Reid will almost certainly allow an amendment of this ilk. And even if it doesn’t pass (it would need 60 votes), there’s the conference committee. And Stupak would raise the same threat, and the same “pro-choice” Democratic leadership will kowtow to him. Even though he probably never had the votes.
So in my mind, it’s really down to this floor vote in the House. Stupak is claiming 225 votes for his position. He’s never been good with numbers. I’m not buying it yet.
Open Left has a whip count going. There are 52 members of Congress on the target list. So far, I’ve heard that Eric Massa, Loretta Sanchez, Bill Owens and Walt Minnick are no votes on the Stupak Amendment. That’s a start.
This is the target list. 42 Democrats:
Altmire (PA-04), Baird (WA-03), Barrow (GA-12), Berry (AR-01), Boccieri (OH-16), Boren (OK-02), Bright (AL-02), Carney (PA-10), Childers (MS-01), Costello (IL-12), Cuellar (TX-28), Dahlkemper (PA-03), Davis, A. (AL-07), L. Davis (TN-04), Donnelly (IN-02), Driehaus (OH-01), Ellsworth (IN-08), Griffith (AL-05), Hill (IN-09), Holden (PA-17), Kildee (MI-05), Lipinski (IL-03), Lynch (MA-09), Marshall (GA-08), Matheson (UT-02),
Melancon (LA-03), Mollohan (WV-01), Oberstar (MN-08), Ortiz (TX-27), Peterson (MN-07), Pomeroy (ND-AL), Rahall (WV-03), Ross (AR-04), Shuler (NC-11), Skelton (MO-04), Snyder (AR-02), Spratt (SC-05), Tanner (TN-08), Taylor (MS-04), Visclosky (IN-01), Wilson (OH-06), Kratovil (MD-01)
And 10 Republicans:
Biggert (R, IL-13), Castle (R, DE-AL), Dent (R, PA-15), Frelinghuysen (R, NJ-11), Kirk (R, IL-10), Capito (R, WV-02), Jenkins (R, KS-02), Lance (R, NJ-07), Lee, C. (R, NY-26), Paulsen (R, MN-03)
I’m going to refine this a bit and I’ll come back.
UPDATE: Oberstar’s a yes on Stupak. So is Stupak, obviously. And Marcy Kaptur and Kathy Dahlkemper, I would guess, since they went to the Rules Committee hearing about it (they were sure to get the women there; the pro-choice Rules Committee women also left the hearing so they wouldn’t have to vote on the rule. Disgusting).
So that’s 4. And there will be a lot more. Working on it.
UPDATE: By the way, this is all on us. The President has checked out of this. Guess he’s saving his energy for that conference committee:
One interesting question: Is the White House weighing in on this? I asked spokesperson Linda Douglass if they were taking a position on Stupak’s amendment–or, more generally, whether they had a position on whether policies inside the exchanges should cover abortion services. “We are not going to be commenting on provisions of the bill as they evolve today,” she told me.
OK, so I would say the 15 who voted against the rule, minus Sanchez and Minnick who have made themselves known, will vote yes on the Stupak Amendment. I’ll also exempt Frank Kratovil, who voted against the rule, because I’ve heard reports that he’s pro-choice. Adding him to the whip list.
Add those 12 to Stupak, Kaptur, Dahlkemper and Oberstar. So, 16 yes. I’m going to add Nick Rahall and Allan Mollohan to that as well, since the article I noted yesterday said they would vote for the bill only if the abortion language were strengthened. So, 18.
UPDATE: Darcy Burner says that progressives should not vote for this bill if the Stupak Amendment passes. And she’s right.
Here are the names from the original Stupak letter asking for this language in the bill. So obviously, they’d want to vote for this.
Stupak, Boren, Peterson, Holden, Childers, L.Davis, Shuler, Ortiz, McIntyre, Costello, Taylor, Oberstar, Bright, Dreihaus, Kaptur, Melancon, Murtha, Kanjorski, Dahlkemper
Subtracting out those already covered, we’re up to 28 Dems voting yes on Stupak.
Altmire, Baird, Boren, Bright, A.Davis, Melancon, Taylor, Childers, Griffith, Marshall, Skelton, Shuler, Stupak, Peterson, Holden, L. Davis, Ortiz, McIntyre, Costello, Oberstar, Dreihaus, Kaptur, Murtha, Kanjorski, Dahlkemper, Rahall, Mollohan
I think those 28 are locked in. Updating the undecided list (33):
Barrow (GA-12), Berry (AR-01), Boccieri (OH-16), Carney (PA-10), Cuellar (TX-28), Donnelly (IN-02), Driehaus (OH-01), Ellsworth (IN-08), Hill (IN-09), Kildee (MI-05), Kratovil (MD-01), Lipinski (IL-03), Lynch (MA-09), Marshall (GA-08), Matheson (UT-02), Perriello (VA-09), Pomeroy (ND-AL), Ross (AR-04), Snyder (AR-02),
Spratt (SC-05), Tanner (TN-08), Visclosky (IN-01), Wilson (OH-06); Biggert (R, IL-13), Castle (R, DE-AL), Dent (R, PA-15), Frelinghuysen (R, NJ-11), Kirk (R, IL-10), Capito (R, WV-02), Jenkins (R, KS-02), Lance (R, NJ-07), Lee, C. (R, NY-26), Paulsen (R, MN-03)
We would need 10 of these to vote no on Stupak to kill the amendment, along with every Democrat not mentioned here (and I’m not convinced they’re all no votes, yet).
Here’s another list of members considered pro-choice but who might need shoring up:
Arcuri (D, NY-24), ?Bean (D, IL-08), Bishop, S. (D, GA-02), ?Boswell (D, IA-03), ?Butterfield (D, NC-01), ?Cardoza (D, CA-18), ?Chandler (D, KY-06), ?Cooper (D, TN-05), ?Costa (D, CA-20), ?Doyle (D, PA-14), ?Edwards, C. (D, TX-17), ?Etheridge (D, NC-02), ?Gordon (D, TN-06), ?Langevin (D, RI-02), ?McMahon (D, NY-13), ?Michaud (D, ME-02), ?Neal (D, MA-02), ?Nye (D, VA-02), ?Obey (D, WI-07), ?Ruppersberger (D, MD-02), ?Ryan, T. (D, OH-17), ?Salazar (D, CO-03), ?Space (D, OH-18)
We would need all of these 23 members to vote yes.
UPDATE: Looks like John Spratt is a yes. I would say Boccieri, Carney, Costello, Donnelly, Doyle, Ellsworth, Hill, Kildee, Kirkpatrick, Lipinski, Michaud, Mitchell, Nye, Perriello, and Ross all voted with anti-choice forces on what seemed like a test vote on this issue. If we lost all of them, we’d have to keep practically everyone else and pick up a good bit of those Republicans.