Senate buries Nelson/Hatch/Casey pro-life amendment to healthcare bill

harry reid, announcement, nelson, stupak, pitts, hatch, casey, abortion, healthcare.jpgAs predicted, the pro-abort Senate Democrat leadership orchestrated a vote to table the Nelson/Hatch/Casey pro-life amendment to their socialized healthcare bill. (Note that co-sponsor Bob Casey has been added to the amendment's title, making it a pro-life Democrat sandwich.)

The vote was 54-45, and tabling means the amendment has been set aside and has effectively failed. Since this was a vote to table rather than a vote on passage, the pro-life vote was NAY. The vote breakdown...

45 Nay Votes (pro-life vote)

7 Democrats (Bayh of IN, Casey of PA, Conrad of ND, Dorgan of ND, Kaufman of DE, Nelson of NE, and Pryor of AR)

38 Republicans

54 Yea Votes (anti-life vote)

51 Democrats

2 Independents (Lieberman of CT and Sanders of VT)

2 Republicans (Collins and Snowe, both of ME)

1 Absent

1 Democrat (Byrd of WV)

Of note is Sens. Johnson (SD), Landrieu (LA), and Reid (NV) voted to table this amendment despite having voted for a similar amendment to prohibit government funding for abortion in the Indian Health Service in 2008. Also recall Reid professes to be pro-life.

national partnership women & families, healthcare, abortion.pngAlso as predicted, the other side is proclaiming victory, for instance an email from the National Partnership for Women & Families saying, "Nice work! Your voice was heard. The Senate just defeated the outrageous Nelson-Hatch anti-choice amendment...."

Politico
reported the reality, however: "Nelson plan dead, but abortion impasse lives," in a piece entitled, in part, "Could abortion still be a bill-killer?"

National Right to Life explained what the vote yesterday meant and what the next step is:

A majority of senators today voted to keep abortion covered in the proposed federal government insurance program, and to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand.

Now, the vote on cloture on the bill itself will become the key vote on whether to put the federal government into the abortion business. We will oppose cloture on the bill, which would require 60 affirmative votes.

In addition, a number of pro-life Democrats in the House, who supported passage of health care legislation on November 7, will not vote for the Senate bill in its current form. So, this is a long way from over.

[Photo via Reuters]


Comments:

I do have a praise. My pro-abort senator (Bayh) vote nay on tabling this amendment! That is huge. He never votes for restrictions on abortion. He has listened. He is up for re-election next year which is why he did it, but he listened. My other senator is pro-life all the way.

Posted by: kmann at December 9, 2009 8:31 AM


Disappointing at best, but interesting in shades of red, blue, & purple.

Hooray for Democrat Evan Bayh of Indiana, because that means he reads the e-mails in his district, and knows Lila Rose had an impact here exposing PP.

Tragedy for the Republicans of Maine, they really got a Collins/Snowe job....

Sanders of Vermont is about as Independant as a perfumed & pedicured lapdog of Senator Leahy can get.

But worst of all....
Lieberman has voted (AGAIN) to finance the National Socialist Eugenics program that Margaret Sanger introduced to America after Hitler's German model.

Posted by: MEL at December 9, 2009 8:40 AM



I also read that the public option will be left out or modified. This will not satisfy liberal legislators either.

Let's just hope this continues to get even more complex and keeps Obama so busy he can't focus on "climate change" and do who knows what else to this country under its guise.

Hear about the blizzard crossing the US?
I'm getting hit by it. That blasted global warming strikes again. During the Copenhagen conference on climate change yet! Ya gotta give it to Mother Nature, she has a great sense of humor.
Why now we're even hearing that male polar bears are cannibalizing their young because global warming is causing starvation among our furry friends of the arctic.
"Global warming" must by frying a few human brains as well. Male polar bears, male lions as well as other animals, have been cannibalizing their young since creation. Its called nature.

Posted by: Mary at December 9, 2009 8:40 AM


To my neighbor kmann:

Yes, Bayh was a surprise--sort of. He wants to get re-elected, but if a young Travis Hankins runs against him, I'll vote for Hankins. Then we'll have another Pence in Congress.

Tell your friends up north to vote for Jackie Walorski, if they're in her district. She'll go from the General Assembly to Congress, & she's backed by Pence.

Posted by: MEL at December 9, 2009 8:46 AM



The real irony is this whole thing should be a cakewalk for the Democrats, the Republicans can't do squat to stop them.
Yet most of the fighting is among the Democrats who just can't come to any universal agreement.
The One even had to descend from Heaven and shake them up.

The best thing for the country is their infighting continues. Healthcare will go nowhere, as well as the rest of their agenda.

Posted by: Mary at December 9, 2009 8:49 AM


Mary---the Dems are on their way out. A pro-life Congress is possible, since this Healthcare Reform, once it's passed, will last as long as the Titanic did. Grab a lifesaver and hang on...

Posted by: MEL at December 9, 2009 9:01 AM


Hi MEL,

My hope is this fighting will continue until next NOvember. This way The One cannot focus on the Crap and Tax Bill, and "immigration reform", which mean amnesty for millions of potential Democrat voters. Now the EPA has declared CO2, a natural substance, a human health threat. Our bodies produce it but that's beside the point. You know this is all about power grabbing.

Posted by: Mary at December 9, 2009 9:11 AM


Sorry, but Bayh just took political cover by that vote. It did no harm to the healthcare bill. His real test will come on the vote for cloture.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 10:06 AM


I am very aware the vote was politcal cover, but at least he's nervous. He should be. I have never voted for him. I was just saying I am glad he is at least a little scared.

Posted by: kmann at December 9, 2009 10:34 AM


Wait, all of the double negatives are confusing me. Which side won? Did the anti-abortion law win?

Posted by: Insurance Telemarketing at December 9, 2009 11:15 AM


No the anti-abortion amendment did not pass.

Posted by: kmann at December 9, 2009 1:23 PM


This is good news for dead babies everywhere.

Posted by: Chris R at December 9, 2009 4:08 PM


The good news is that abortion will continue to be debated. It's just that the health care bill was not the place to put it.
Many pro life advocates support Health Care reform.
Health Care and Abortion need to be dealt separately.
With any anti abortion bill must come material support for all those mothers out there who cannot afford or are not fully capable of taking care of newborn babies.
a 13 year old girl who is pregnant needs society's support to help her rear the child and provide it with all the advantages of those more fortunate.
A mother with many mouths to feed needs to know that society will be there to help her get through the added financial and emotional stress of an additional child.
These issues cannot be dealt with by a few words written, at the last minute, into a health care bill designed for another purpose.
If and when this country decides to restrict abortions we will need to do it in a comprehensive and thoughtful way that will not allow critics to point to it's shortcomings down the road.

Posted by: Norris Hall at December 9, 2009 4:36 PM


"Health Care and Abortion need to be dealt separately."

But Norris, Pro-choicers insist that abortion is health care. Which is it?

Posted by: Janet at December 9, 2009 5:22 PM


We are to have a separation of church and state! I am VARY RELIGIOUS and am pro-life in many ways, but it is GODS place to judge others not mine, so when it comes to government law I render under Cesar what is Cesar’s and God what is God’s. My job on earth is not to judge or tell others what they are doing wrong, but to help them! And does not the Lord say to PLUCK THE THORN OUT OF YOUR OWN EYES FIRST BEFORE YOU DO THE SAME FOR OTHERS! None of us are without SIN! Would Jesus say it was okay a 16-year-old boys choice to be beaten, decapitated, and burned just because he was gay! The powers that be do and they use God word to justify it. No God of mine would do this! Would Jesus tell a woman that is afraid to bring a child in to this world just to suffer, that she is DAMMED! No, for he died for ALL OUR SINS. Once again, I see religious moral supercede social morals. GOD gave us the right to chose our own path and let no human or there laws stand in your way but God’s.

Posted by: Mary Katherine at December 9, 2009 6:36 PM


Separation of church and state means no government run churches. No state imposed religion. It is found nowhere in the Constitution.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 6:59 PM


Hi Carla, 6:59PM

Exactly! It does not mean religious people cannot speak out on important moral issues, be they slavery, war, segregation, civil rights, or abortion.

Posted by: Mary at December 9, 2009 7:21 PM


Hi Mary!
I have you to thank for that. :) I have learned so much from you and LOVE that you are here. You have made history come alive for me with your comments.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at December 9, 2009 7:31 PM


Hi Carla,

Thank you so much for your kind comments. What's frightening is that I've actually lived much of the history I've talked about!

Did I ever tell you about spending my Saturday afternoons at the track, betting on the dinosaur races? I lost more than a few gold pieces there!!

Posted by: Mary at December 9, 2009 9:29 PM


Mary Katherine said:
We are to have a separation of church and state! I am VARY RELIGIOUS and am pro-life in many ways, but it is GODS place to judge others not mine, so when it comes to government law I render under Cesar what is Cesar’s and God what is God’s. My job on earth is not to judge or tell others what they are doing wrong, but to help them!
******
IMO Mary Katherine, we must judge others actions and speak and act forcefully when confronted with immoral actions that lead to the corruption and compromise of souls. The proper action that balances with protecting the innocent with judging offenders often eludes me too. I have found that it is the best I can do to live by principle.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 10, 2009 12:23 AM


To truthseeker
From the mouth of Babes I hear:
"We must judge others actions and speak and act forcefully when confronted with immoral actions that lead to the corruption and compromise of souls."
If I thought I was pure and without SIN I would say these things too!!!!! Furthermore, one may think I have a unequivocal "GOD" complex (and could be misconstrued as a form of Blasphemy). Yet, I would never assume that I am without SIN and there for, have no right to enforce my will on others and use the Lord name to justify it! For whom are we to say that the person one is attacking was not preordained by GOD to be exactly what they are (The Lord knows all even down to the last hear on your head)? Did you ever think that they were not put here to test one such as yourself and your faith? Meaning, your faith to leave it to the LORD as HE states, or would you “Passing Judgment on Others” and take thing in to your own hands and commit an act of SIN against a child of God (for we are all his children, ignorant in "The Ways"). I have always prayed for all humanity & our planet and that includes you and by your action here I will continue to keep you in my priers, so you may find your own way to humble yourself to your LORD and except that you are nothing more then a "Babe" in the arms of your God. Peace be with you & Priers be with you and remember, “ Forgive “THEM” for they know not what THEY do!”
Mary Katherine (AKA: StonewallMary)

To Mary
"It does not mean religious people cannot speak out on important moral issues, be they slavery, war, segregation, civil rights, or abortion."

All this thing are social issues and the church has no place swaying the votes of our leaders (Caesar), it is the church and it's followers to lead by example in their own community and church, not to enforce the will of God on others (Do you think that the Lord is so bad at taking care of his own children that you must intervene?)
The Omission & Quakers consider "us all" ( and I would have to agree) just as SINFUL as the one you POINT FINGERS AT! But if I was given a choice I would rather be welcomed in to their house (Omission & Quakers) then anyone else.

Posted by: Mary Katherine at December 10, 2009 2:26 PM


HI Mary Katherine. Who are some of the teachers that you get your theology from? I mean, popular level teachers, ones that I may have heard of. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 10, 2009 2:40 PM


Or ones that I could look up on the internet.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at December 10, 2009 2:41 PM


Hi Mary Katherine,

So the Quakers had no business organizing against slavery, being an active force in the abolitionist movement, and running an underground railroad?

Clergy spoke against the evils of slavery.

So Dr. King had no business running a civil rights movement from his church pulpit?

These religous leaders and groups most definitely tried to influence public policy, i.e. sway Caeser.

Should the Quakers have been silenced? Should Dr.King have been silenced?

Oh and Mary Katherine, I didn't point any fingers at anyone.

Posted by: Mary at December 10, 2009 3:23 PM


Mary Katherine,
You don't have to be sinless to know when something is wrong. In fact, thanks be to God, such consiousness is a gift and a grace given even unto sinners like me and you. IMO it would be immoral not to judge and to let others go on sinning without "helping" them by making them aware of what they are doing and how it is corrupting them.

Posted by: truthseeker at December 10, 2009 3:31 PM


Does that mean I wouldn't be welcome in house of Ommision and Quakers?

Posted by: truthseeker at December 10, 2009 5:05 PM


Let's keep abortion out of the Health care debate.
Everyone knows that our Health care system needs serious reforming. Many Americans are without health care. Many unemployed face losing their coverage. Many poor have to line up at free clinics. And many people who have insurance are paying such high premiums they don't have money left over to pay the doctor.

Interjecting abortion into the health care debate forces Abortion foes and Pro choice folks to cast their votes in favor or against health care reform...not based on Reform but on Abortion.

If you make abortion illegal, then there will be no abortion funding in health care anyway.
Concentrate on winning the war and all the little battles will be won too.

Posted by: Norris Hall at December 10, 2009 5:56 PM


Norris,
I don't want government mandated health care period. The pro-life people don't want abortion in there; including government funded abortion is just the lib's way of trying to sneak it through a back door. Why don't they just get it out of there and get down to the business of the other problems. Like the insanity in making it mandatory for us to purchase the plan or getting fined and put in prison...the whole thing needs to be flushed; government funding of abortion along with it!

Posted by: truthseeker at December 10, 2009 9:33 PM


Mary Katherine,

Our job on earth is not to judge, but to tell others what they are doing wrong..What goes around comes around...the Lord says: as I did to you, do onto others."PLUCK THE THORN OUT OF YOUR OWN EYES FIRST BEFORE YOU DO THE SAME FOR OTHERS" yes, but then?...

Posted by: Luis at December 11, 2009 2:15 PM


Truthseeker: I understand your views. Many people have good health care plans from their employers...or are fortunate enough to have Medicare from the government. Or they are young and health and their premiums are affordable. Like you, they don't want to see any changes in it. For them, they like the way things are now.
However, many Americans are like myself. We find it very expensive and very difficult to get health care because of pre existing conditions. We spend almost as much on insurance as we do on mortgage payments.
It's not a "lib" or "conservative" issue.
It's a survival issue.
That's why we would not want to see Abortion mixed in with the health care debate.
It only serves to divide those of us who need better heath care.

Posted by: Norris Hall at December 13, 2009 10:29 AM


Since my husband separated from the US Army, I no longer have health insurance. I've been looking around, and it's terribly expensive, and there's no way we will be able to afford it for me for a long time. HOWEVER, it would be beyond selfish of me to want the government to take care of this aspect of my life at the expense of the well-being of the nation in which I live. Looking at the taxation rates of other countries with socialized medicine, looking at their GNP vs. spending, seeing the vast wastefulness of the failed experiment in socialized medicine which is Medicare, I KNOW this cannot and will not work, nor is it something which would be beneficial to our nation as a whole, and although it would benefit me in the short term (possibly, I've seen the low quality of care also inherent in the socialized medicine machine) it's nothing I can support.

Posted by: xalisae at December 13, 2009 11:21 AM


It would be incredibly self-centered of me to hope for and work toward implementing a permanent system which would be fundamentally catastrophic to the country simply to alleviate a temporary condition which is/can be hazardous but not is not definitively so. Much like abortion!

Posted by: xalisae at December 13, 2009 12:52 PM