Is This An Abortion Whip Count?

Bart Stupak told George Stephanopoulos this morning that he and 11 other Democrats who supported health reform in November will vote against the Senate version because they believe that it contains insufficient restrictions on abortion funding. That probably didn’t help Nancy Pelosi’s breakfast go down smoothly, but Stupak’s vow at least gave her a better sense of what numbers she’s dealing with.

With the death of John Murtha and the resignations of Neil Abercrombie and Robert Wexler, the magic number Pelosi needs to pass the Senate version is 217. The one Republican who supported health reform last fall–Joseph Cao from Louisiana–has switched his vote to a “no,” which means that even if every Democrat who voted for health reform the first time did so again, the ayes would still only come to 216. Take away the Stupak Dozen and Pelosi is down to 204.

Before we declare health reform dead, though, there are a couple other points to consider. One is that Stupak hasn’t always been the best judge of what his pro-life colleagues will do. After the November vote, the Michigan Democrat warned that if his abortion language didn’t survive, “there will be 40 people who won’t vote with them the next time they need us–and that could be the final version of this bill.” Twelve vote-switchers still pose a significant hurdle for the Democratic leadership to overcome, but they’re a heck of a lot easier than 40.

Some of the Stupak dozen are genuinely convinced that the Senate’s abortion language allows for government funding of abortions and consider their vote switch a stand on principle. Others, though, are paying close attention to ad campaigns targeting their conservative constituents and are primarily concerned about preserving their seats in November. These Democrats may find that switching their votes will help them shore up their pro-life credentials. But as Jonathan Cohn points out today, there’s no reason to believe that they won’t still be hit with attack ads for their initial support of health reform last fall.

The other relevant number is how many Democrats who originally voted against health reform are willing to switch their votes and support the effort. The AP sent a survey to House members and reported that at least nine Democrats indicated they were considering switching their “no” votes to “yes.” If those nine do come through for Pelosi, that would bring her total up to 213–still three short, but within striking distance. Pick off a couple of the Stupak Dozen, sway another “no” vote and she’s there.

In order to do that, however, Pelosi has got to do a better job of hiding her exasperation with her pro-life colleagues. When asked about Stupak’s concerns, she has on three separate occasions in the past week flatly dismissed them as unfounded. “There is no federal funding of abortion,” says Pelosi. By that she means two things: 1) the Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds, with some exceptions, to pay for abortions; and 2) she does not interpret the Senate’s version of health reform as allowing federal funding of abortion.

As it happens, a lot of people–including a number of pro-life politicians and religious leaders–share Pelosi’s interpretation. But some don’t, and it’s not as if they’re suddenly going to smack themselves in the forehead and say, “By golly, she’s right! I hadn’t looked closely enough at the bill, but now that the Speaker points that out, I see that it doesn’t fund abortions at all!” It wouldn’t kill her–and it just might help negotiations with some wavering Democrats–if Pelosi would try saying something more like: “I understand that’s how some of my colleagues interpret the language of the Senate bill. I see it differently, but I do respect their concerns.”

That sort of response might sound as if it simply writes off those pro-life Democratic votes. To the contrary, it would actually open a door that Pelosi has currently slammed shut.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • stuartzechman

    Amy Sullivan:

    Is This An Abortion Whip Count?

    Is this (and the subject of John Edwards’ peccadilloes) your only beat?

  • deconstructiva

    Thanks for your post, Amy, but what does an abortion whip look like? (please don’t say a coat hangar… …ah, back to my normal self, HC talk makes me depressed).
    .
    But Amy, are Stupak and his Dirty Dozen truly lost votes (like most R’s) or can he really be reached? Obama is getting nowhere with most R’s, so why should he and Pelosi reach out anymore to those who won’t change their minds? Or do you have more insights (and recipes, please?) for us? I’d appreciate them (and appreciate your work here, what others think is their biz).

  • shepherdwong

    “Before we declare health reform dead, though, there are a couple other points to consider.”
    .
    You left out one point to consider: Stupak may be lying.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    “By golly, she’s right! I hadn’t looked closely enough at the bill, but now that the Speaker points that out, I see that it doesn’t fund abortions at all!

    Indeed that would be an unlikely scenario. But it would be absolutely correct. The bill does not allow for Federal funding of abortions and saying that it does involves significant doses of dishonesty. It’s like asserting that the taxes that I pay to the USVI helps pay for Alaska oil drilling because the Federal funds I replace become available for that purpose.

  • Joe Bftsplk

    kbang, are you out there?
    Do AS abortion posts count on Thursdays?

  • deconstructiva

    …you forgot pregnant women in the military, Oral Roberts, Tim Geithner’s summer tennis camp, Michelle Obama dolls, Obama church sightings, real death panels, Obama’s summer reading, Gary Busey’s Carter impression (Amy, did you ever find that SNL clip?), the Conservative Bible project (that was a fun post, Amy), and cooking recipes. It’s not all abortion all the time.

  • stuartzechman

    I suppose I was using “John Edwards’ peccadilloes” as a catch-all phrase to mean “assorted tabloid trivia about which to moralize“.

  • http://www.ghostnote.com Cookie Puss

    Life begins at conception and ends at birth. Next.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Speaker Pelosi will get the votes she wants. She always does.
    .
    And I’m sure she will give AS’s political advice all the attention it deserves.
    .
    It’s amazing Pelosi has only risen to Speaker of the House without Amy’s help.

  • nflfoghorn

    ‘Been waiting all day for this one:
    .
    He put the ‘stupe’ in Stupak.
    .
    Since when did he become a whip?

  • FlownOver

    True dat, cookie.
    .
    Somebody ask Stupak how he squares his “pro-life principles” with voting against a bill that would save 45,000 American lives every year.

  • http://firstfarmandweatherreport.blogspot.com/ maxwelldog

    How demeaning it must seem. Reporting on what a group of men will decide what is best for women’s bodies.
    Good lord, to hear some pro-lifers talk, it’s like these girls MEANT to get in trouble, Meant to remember that day for the rest of their lives, meant to remember every goddammed hour of their lives that they HAD NO CHOICE!
    Health Care is already TOO EXPENSIVE for ONE person, let alone a baby, too!!

    dang it.
    Too harsh?
    It gets to me, sometimes.

    The research I have comes from two sites and a personal story of the event.
    Not knowing what Time’s policies are on this, I’ll post the info at: http://maxwelldog.wordpress.com/
    Plain facts sound like we should offer some assistance to those who want an abortion, but even more encouraging, it also looks like about a third or more could be avoided
    IF we HAD Health Care for the woman and her child.

    So, here we are again.
    Americans wanting to be more American and the Republican’t Guard standing directly in the path.
    It’s almost like they WANT the women to get abortions.

  • http://fourlegsrgood.wordpress.com fourlegsgood

    I’m sick of freaking Stupak and his pro-life crap. He’s all worried about fetuses but he doesn’t give a flying f*ck is people drop deap from diabetes or cancer because they don’t have health insurance.

    What a freaking jerk.

  • the committee

    This is a healthcare bill, not a freaking Emily Dickinson poem. If the Stupak 12 don’t understand the Hyde amendment, then they’re morons–and so is anyone who would cover for them.
    .
    Until you can show me what in the Senate bill is so ambiguous, Sullivan, I’ll just assume you’re a moron too.
    .
    Full disclosure: I already assume you’re a moron.

  • jcapan

    Amy, no offense, but do you have an opt-out clause in your contract? You simply don’t fit the Swamp. Maybe dead-tree, old biddies in dental offices dig your stuff, but your topics, your tone, and your complete lack of engagement with commenters (i.e. obvious misunderstanding about what a blog is) lead me to conclude that you’d be happier outta da Swamp.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    FO~
    …a bill that would save 45,000 American lives every year.
    .
    Come again? How exactly did you arrive at such precise speculations?
    .
    Furthermore, is there nothing in this bill warranting a ‘no’ vote? This is the perfect reform bill that solves all our health-care ills, ensures coverage for those who cannot afford insurance, does not overburden the middle class with personal mandates, and essentially encapsulates a universal health-care initiative? I wholeheartedly endorse UHC, however, this bill not only falls well short of that mark, it always speaks to many areas that will undoubtedly become more problematic because of, rather than without, this bill.

  • jeriv

    @ Exiled_At_Home…

    45,000 is a bit on the high side, but yes, there’s been studies on the # of people who die each year due to the lack of healthcare. You can look it up yourself… and then dig up whatever it is that folks use to discredit said studies. I’m sure there’s an undotted i or uncrossed t somewhere on the reports…

    And as for “I wholeheartedly endorse UHC”, that’s BS. They’ve been trying to get UHC for what? Like 70 years? So, you think doing doing nothing, vs doing the the minimum they can do now (which will still ensure an additional 30 million) is better than the status quo? Reeeally?

    And, please do explain exactly how it is that the current HCR bill is too much of a burden, but true UHC isn’t? I’d love to hear how that one works out!

    Thanks!

  • pafro

    Stupak is just trying to kill the bill and this is his easiest way to do it. He is a Republican plant, nothing more, nothing less.

  • http://firstfarmandweatherreport.blogspot.com/ maxwelldog
  • artraveler

    If Stupid Stupak wants to run for deacon in the Catholic Church, he needs to get out of Congress but right now, abortion is legal. He needs to decide whether he represents the people of the U.S. or Rome!

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Jeriv~
    Thank you for engaging in such a non-patronizing manner. It’s rare that I have such an opportunity to engage with someone so open-minded about discourse and readily willing to hear out another’s point of view before reflexively judging their latent motives and personal narrative.
    ~
    Now, in respect to the specifics of your post, rather than the tone, there’s quite a lot to take issue with. If you wish me to put any stock in your alleged 45,000 lives saved scenario, then I suggest you link me to these studies. Your point is only as strong as the evidence you provide, not the energy I expend running down your allegations for verification. But, in general terms of such studies, and without disputing your assertion that there are biased partisan-driven refutations of these studies, from a strictly rationalistic approach I have little use for these types of predications. One can not possibly presume to speak with any sort of authority on the matter of the preventative capcity of this bill. Having insurance in no way exempts an individual from the malignancy of certain illness or injuries. To suggest otherwise is pure propaganda, the sole purpose of which is to nicely veil a shoddy product in desperate need of a buyer.
    ~
    On to universal health-care, an exemplary concept warranting of our society’s unwavering support. Complete, absolute access to health-care for all. Despite my conservative leanings, I actually support progressive taxaton of this absolute social requirement. It’s social justice. Unfortunately, the current bill, through it’s oppressive personal mandates, overburdens the middle class, as opposed to my idea of progressivey taxed universal health-care drawn on from the coffers of the mega-wealthy élite.

  • acameronw

    Unless I’m wrong about this (and, oh my yes, it’s happened before) what Stupak & Co. are objecting to is women (and families; abortions don’t just happen to singletons) being able to buy health insurance policies through exchanges using their own money. The fact that the exchanges will be set up by the federal government is the only connection “federal funding” has to this issue.

    And not to get the anti-choice lobby fired up, but isn’t the next logical step to require companies that do business with the federal government to strike abortion coverage from their employee health care plans?

    Having met with nothing but frustration in their efforts to make abortion illegal, the anti-choice lobby has decide to make abortions impossible to get. Or if not impossible, then extremely expensive. Or if not extremely expensive, then extremely dangerous.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Jeriv~
    Thank you for engaging in such a non-patronizing manner. It’s rare that I have such an opportunity to engage with someone so open-minded about discourse and readily willing to hear out another’s point of view before reflexively judging their latent motives and personal narrative.
    ~
    Now, in respect to the specifics of your post, rather than the tone, there’s quite a lot to take issue with. If you wish me to put any stock in your alleged 45,000 lives saved scenario, then I suggest you link me to these studies. Your point is only as strong as the evidence you provide, not the energy I expend running down your allegations for verification. But, in general terms of such studies, and without disputing your assertion that there are biased partisan-driven refutations of these studies, from a strictly rationalistic approach I have little use for these types of predications. One can not possibly presume to speak with any sort of authority on the matter of the preventative capacity of this bill. Having insurance in no way exempts an individual from the malignancy of certain illnesses or injuries. To suggest otherwise is pure propaganda, the sole purpose of which is to nicely veil a shoddy product in desperate need of a buyer.
    ~
    On to universal health-care, an exemplary concept warranting of our society’s unwavering support. Complete, absolute access to health-care for all. Despite my conservative leanings, I actually support progressive taxation of this absolute social requirement. It’s social justice. Unfortunately, the current bill, through it’s oppressive personal mandates, overburdens the middle class, as opposed to my idea of progressively taxed universal health-care drawn on from the coffers of the mega-wealthy élite.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Disregard above reply. See below.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Max~
    Dream much? Oh, yes, I’ve been caught. Please. I’ll refer you to my above reply and then I’ll take my leave of your nonsensical interjections.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Hyperbole aside, we are left with…nothing. Thanks for the insights.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Does that apply to all Catholic politicians, or just the ones espousing Catholic tenets that you disagree with? You are aware of course, that the Catholic Church is one of the more vocal proponents of true universal health-care? So, naturally, you would object to a Catholic politician voting for universal health-care, as he/she should take cues from the American people, who do not favor universal health-care by a majority, rather than Rome, which does, in fact, support UHC.

  • Ivy_B

    My link to current week’s column describing real life child who needs some of the concern directed toward the unborn.

    http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/85796912.html

  • Friar Tuck

    “The Chair recognizes Count Vladimir, Member for the district of Abortion Whip . . .”

  • http://firstfarmandweatherreport.blogspot.com/ maxwelldog

    by the way, thanx, Amy for the links and thinking. Really love learning new perspectives.

  • Jim, Foolish Literalist

    So no one, not even the abortion-obsessed Amy Sullivan, has any idea who the other eleven are? I suspect a lot of this has to do with an obscure back-bencher who’s getting a lot of attention, and likes it.

  • stewartiii

    NewsBusters — TIME’s Sullivan to Nancy Pelosi: Stop Spooking the Pro-Life House Dems!
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/03/04/times-sullivan-nancy-pelosi-stop-spooking-pro-life-house-dems

  • the committee

    Morons sure love them some Amy Sullivan.

  • http://firstfarmandweatherreport.blogspot.com/ maxwelldog

    exiled at home.

    So, this is it for you, too?
    you ask from where numbers come from, but when shown, the light bothers you and back off into the darkness you go?
    Well, there’s the links. Read them yourself. I really am not in the mood for running fetch to your narrow thinking.

  • russ42

    Polosi is looking beyond the vote. She knows the bill is dead and so she might as well extract free, highly effective tv ads for her ‘no’ blue dogs using repub money. Have you seen the ads? They are a giant gift. I wonder how she chose which ones were allowed to waffle? Each of them will vote no again.

    On the bright side, Obama could potentially decrease his ‘wuss’ pollings by appearing to fight the good fight to the end. And they have done a good job of framing the republicans as the boogymen.

    But we who have been watching know that this thing was scuttled by the progressive caucus.

  • 3xfire3

    Paul,
    “Indeed that would be an unlikely scenario. But it would be absolutely correct. The bill does not allow for Federal funding of abortions and saying that it does involves significant doses of dishonesty”.
    Paul. You are stating your opinion as if it were an indisputable fact. It is not.
    It is your perception or opinion of the facts. Other honest people look at the same information and have totally different perceptions of what is fact.
    Have you considered that Stupak and the other congressmen truly believe in there interpretation of the Senate bill? No one can state positively that their interpretation or perception is the only one that is truth. Only the Supreme Court can truly make that decision.

  • 3xfire3

    fourlegs,
    And your support of the killing of babies doesn’t make you a jerk?

  • 3xfire3

    Exiled,
    You use way too much common sense in your posts. Common sense doesn’t fit with many liberals perception of the truth.

  • http://firstfarmandweatherreport.blogspot.com/ maxwelldog

    3xfire3, a man? No doubt. Only a man could come up with that form of thinking.
    Once upon a time, women didn’t WANT to get abortions, but the MEDICAL COSTS of having a baby WERE OUTRAGEOUSLY TOO HIGH!
    So, the moral is: If you want to trim down the amount of abortions, then offer some way to get AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE.
    If you want to act like an ass, and lord knows, you’re doing a fine job of it, keep up your “killing babies” concept.

  • http://firstfarmandweatherreport.blogspot.com/ maxwelldog

    exiled and 3x
    Actually, common sense never makes any headway against narrow minded, holier than thou, church of the flag waving clones like yourselves. If all you have is your idiotic opinion, and everyone HAS an opinion, already, and you offer neither fact or number but rather a regurgitation of some claptrap you’ve been fed by fun bob basso, then what the heck good is reading your words, anyway?
    And then, given facts, you write it off as untrue because the RNC didn’t kiss it; given opinions of others, you scowl at their insight, demeaning their very existence; and given history you choose to lament the past instead of build towards the future.
    Never before have i ever said this with as much enthusiasm….but, dang.
    Get a Life!

  • http://firstfarmandweatherreport.blogspot.com/ maxwelldog

    russ42, so, another “prophet”?
    You know how they’re going to vote?
    Amazing.
    Even before the money is paid to the Republican Party from the big companies you have somehow cracked the egg of the future to see this? Perhaps circus work awaits you?

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    What are you talking about? Seriously? If you read my post, which you obviously did not, you would understand my reason for not giving too much weight to the study.

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly Neo)

    Max~
    Who are you? You obviously haven’t waded through the swamp all that often, because your “observations” are incredibly erroneous. I am not a Republican, how you derived that from my post is beyond me.What specifically can you say about my post that was incorrect? I began with a question, asking artraveler if his hyperbolic accusation of Stupak taking cues from Rome was more isolated to art’s own opposition to the amendment, or if he always opposed any Catholic politician taking a position that the Vatican supports. I then pointed out that Catholic Church is an ardent defender of universal health-care. Fact. I then asked if art would oppose a Catholic politician who supported universal health-care. Perfectly logical, and completely devoid of mistruths. So, if you would be so inclined, could you point out where I went astray in my reasoning or what was simply a regurgitation of GOP talking points? If not, then piss off.

  • 3xfire3

    Maxwelldog,
    “3xfire3, a man? No doubt. Only a man could come up with that form of thinking”.
    “If you want to act like an ass, and lord knows, you’re doing a fine job of it, keep up your “killing babies” concept”.

    Wrong. According to many recent surveys, more Americans today are Pro-Life than Pro-Choice.
    You and your peers call Congressman Stupak a jerk because he is Pro-Life and then you get angry when I say you are a jerk for killing babies which is what you are doing. No matter how hard you try to rationalize it it’s not a concept. Killing of babies is a reality.

  • 3xfire3

    Ivy_B,

    “My link to current week’s column describing real life child who needs some of the concern directed toward the unborn”.
    Can you not bring yourself to say what is “unborn”? Does your unfinished sentence make you feel better?

    Can we not help both the child in need and the unborn baby?
    It’s amazing how Pro-Abortion people like to play with words when describing an unborn child.
    What if you’re wrong?

  • colincody

    Those who wish to know why Obama’s socialized medicine will not and cannot work and what actually will work should read “The Cure” by Dr. David Gratzer who is licensed to practice medicine in both Canada and the US and so knows both systems very well. He writes in his introduction: “What follows is a comprehensive look at American health care that points the way to a better system, and avoids the nightmare scenarios I have seen in Canada. Americans should never be forced into the hell of Canadian-style waiting lists. But there must be an alternative to the purgatory of rising costs and uneven quality. The way out is to embrace the policy solutions used to improve every other aspect of the economy–that is, to recognize that innovation and choice can exist only when we unleash the forces of capitalism.”

  • http://firstfarmandweatherreport.blogspot.com/ maxwelldog

    exiled at home…what post?

  • http://firstfarmandweatherreport.blogspot.com/ maxwelldog

    3xfire, you are missing the point.A slightly different perspective…
    Do you support the Health Care Reform? The ones put together to lower health care costs?
    And, if the answer is “yes, you do support health Care Reform”
    then you are on the right path to decrease the amount of abortions, because no matter what the end result polls and surveys tell you (which are absolutely worthless) it’s the woman getting the abortion that makes the choice….
    .

    http://maxwelldog.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/adresses-of-abortion-reasonings/
    .
    there are two pure numbers there, who and why, if you will.
    Plus two personal views, one from the vantage point of looking back, one while she’s getting the abortion.

  • http://firstfarmandweatherreport.blogspot.com/ maxwelldog

    3xfire3…
    or, perhaps I’ve made the mistake.
    You’re not a man.
    Sorry, lady. You gave all the sounds of what men say to women to keep them down and in their place. It never occurred to me that a woman would relinquish her body, her status as a human being, and paycheck so easily.

  • http://firstfarmandweatherreport.blogspot.com/ maxwelldog

    Not an easy task…”where you went wrong” eh?
    .
    “the American people, who do not favor universal health-care by a majority”
    (if you keep referring to a poll of 908 people, or the other one with 1200 answers, you’re still comparing 360 MILLION people to a mere 2000 all told. You do remember how the Republican’ts wanted a trimming of some 28 Million people to 3 Million, right?)
    .
    “how you derived that from my post is beyond me.”
    (you keep referring to your post, and I still haven’t seen where you actually have a post.)
    .
    How I derived the Republican’t in you…not the Republican. Eisenhower was a Republican. Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican. Reagan was an actor. You are no Republican. and…
    .
    “If you wish me to put any stock in your alleged 45,000 lives saved scenario, then I suggest you link me to these studies.”
    (done, but to no avail…)
    “not the energy I expend running down your allegations for verification”
    (Reagan used to hold his hand to his ear as if he hadn’t heard the question. Nixon would glower. Bush jr. would take the word of Cheney. But your only excuse is not wanting to do the research in something? If you debate with no research, you’re not debating at all. You’re arguing. And worse, because of your lack of research, you are arguing nonsense. And that is correct, is it not?)
    (just two more)
    .
    “the current bill, through it’s oppressive personal mandates, overburdens the middle class, as opposed to my idea of progressively taxed universal health-care drawn on from the coffers of the mega-wealthy élite.”
    (If you slice out “your idea”…then this is exactly the RNC stand on this issue. Danged near word for word…although I admit, you do class up the bit with some literal flourishes. And the line, mega-wealthy `elite….wow. How come they don’t scream “socialist” at you? All of your writing reflects that flourish, though. Hard to believe this next reasoning…)
    .
    “Exiled,
    You use way too much common sense in your posts. Common sense doesn’t fit with many liberals perception of the truth.”

    (yeah, yeah. I know. You didn’t write this. But, more to the point, since you’re so big on evidence.
    If you run with the dogs…you are a dog.)

    Now, consider this, sir, and all respectful as it is meant.
    While it is true…I’m new to the Swamp. I think I like Joe Klein(I can hear afguy’s hairs bristle on the back of his neck as I wrote that…) and Ms. Tumulty because they give me the appearance of people getting information out to us. And in words that Liberal Arts graduates like myself can understand. And there are OTHER writers as well, and guess what???
    They don’t always agree on things.
    But they stay civil, level headed, and most of all, they stay researched.
    You can bet your bottom dollar.(go look for it…in a sock drawer, that terrible pair of argyles you know absolutely no one would steal or look in [you didn't wash them before you put them in there, did you?] see if your stash of bills is still in there)
    that if I have to research what I speak or write of, that I’m danged well going to call into question those who do not attend to their research…In fact, I too read that alternate piece of drivel about how the numbers were skewed by a point of timing.
    Only 22000 people die every year due to no health care insurance.
    the other 22789n were incidental that year, and the amount varies from year to year….
    Is your point that 22000 deaths a year isn’t enough?
    Or that you resent the fact that the greater number was given speaking preference because it was more sensational? (if the later, then we’ve a similar spirit, at least, but the fact remains of another 22000 dead in the first place) but whichever…
    those don’t include the loss of life to abortions and the almighty UHC as it pertains to the vatican, though.
    “I then asked if art would oppose a Catholic politician who supported universal health-care. Perfectly logical, and completely devoid of mistruths.” Well, I don’t know how the “rules of baiting someone” relates to the question you posed It certainly sounds like a call for the ghost, Kennedy), but, contrary to the laughable court statement, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
    … I’m sure you read the original eight point Health Care Package, didn’t you?
    And at least SOME of the encyclopedic props the Republican’t party produced for the cameras at the summit?
    Well cases are presented that do call for terminating the life of the baby…duh.
    The health and welfare of the mother.
    The overall health of the baby.
    But not even in the same ballpark figures as those with different reasons.
    Rape, incest, got drunk and woke up pregnant.
    Fast talking lusty boy on a hot Summers day.
    The kid is only sixteen!
    Not enough money to do anything for herself let alone a child. Not enough common sense to give the child any kind of real life.
    Most of the last ones are too poor, too immature, and dang it! They know it and delete the child.

  • http://firstfarmandweatherreport.blogspot.com/ maxwelldog

    Ivy_B
    I can’t see it, I’m sorry. Is there a connection between this article and abortion?
    3xfire3, there are thousands of words to describe death at others hands. There doesn’t seem to be as many words to describe what the women felt after they did what they had to do. Say it over to yourself till you understand the meaning. Research it.

  • http://firstfarmandweatherreport.blogspot.com/ maxwelldog

    uh…I looked at my words and realized I had neglected Amy’s name. Geez..I AM new here, but I love the news.
    I love the debates (by researched commenters)
    And, Ms. Sullivan, I like your work, too.
    Heck, I’de say Mike scherer’s work too, if I could remember how to spell his name right.

blog comments powered by Disqus