‘Not happy with me’

By Jennifer J. Foster

I told you last week about how U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, has organized a group of Democrats to vote with Republicans to block the health care legislation if it is not amended to block taxpayer money from being used to cover abortion. (Details, including an explanation of how the current bill would change standing federal policy on tax-funded abortions, in last week’s post.)

Let’s see how Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing with this big-tent concept, shall we?

From The Hill:

Rep. Bart Stupak said Speaker Pelosi is not pleased with his effort to change abortion-related provisions in the healthcare bill being crafted by the House.

During an interview on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” show, Stupak (D-Mich.) said he is undeterred in trying to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions. Stupak, who opposes abortion rights, acknowledged that some in his party are upset with his public campaign to change the bill ...

Stupak pointed out that he and Democratic leaders have a fundamental disagreement on whether health plans that receive subsidies from the government should be allowed to provide coverage options on abortions.

Stupak wants a vote on the House floor to strike the language, and predicts he would have the votes to pass such an amendment.

“This has been federal law since 1976,“ he said, noting that President Barack Obama has vowed not to allow healthcare reform to pay for abortions.

“We have to have a vote,“ he said.

Hmm. Sounds like Pelosi isn’t playing well with others.

Well, no worries. This guy is just like so many others, right? He’ll make a lot of noise for the national media attention, and then he’ll back down in time for things to calm down so he can keep his seat.

Not so fast, my friend.

Stupak stressed he wants to vote for healthcare reform and is “still somewhat optimistic” that he will reach an accord with Democratic leaders.

However, the Michigan Democrat said he will not be backing down: “I’m comfortable with where I’m at. This is who I am. It’s reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it.“

Wow. A principle-driven legislator, completely unafraid of losing his power—and, therefore, uncontrollable?

No wonder Pelosi doesn’t dig him.

See also:

Remember how we were talking about how, if left unaddressed, this component of the health care legislation could create problems for the Democratic leadership and the bill’s overall prospects? Behold, pushback: CNN’s Political Ticker had this item last week on how the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged priests around the country to speak out against the legislation from the pulpit this Sunday. The conference provided fliers for insertion into this weekend’s newsletters “urging parishioners to contact their senators and representatives to ask them ‘to fix these bills with the pro-life amendments,‘“ CNN reported.

“The bills will have to change or the bishops have pledged to oppose them,“ the flier reads. “Our nation is at a crossroads.“

Indeed.

Check out this story about a former executive director of a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Texas who had a change of heart after witnessing a shift in the organization’s focus:

According to (former director Abby) Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it’s business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.

“It seemed like maybe that’s not what a lot of people were believing any more because that’s not where the money was. The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,“ said Johnson.

Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about.

I have said here before that it never made any sense to me to put an organization with a financial stake in the failure of contraception in charge of teaching contraception.

Abby Johnson’s comments illustrate the point.

This week’s column

By Jennifer J. Foster

In case you missed it in Saturday’s Opelika-Auburn News, or if you live outside the print delivery area, this week’s column is now available online. Check it out:

Political e-mail: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

As you can probably surmise from the title, it’s all about the perils—and promise, if you look hard enough—of electronic electioneering.

Let me know what you think.

James camp responds to Johnson rumor

By Jennifer J. Foster

I received a statement a few minutes ago from Brett Hall, communications director for Republican gubernatorial candidate Tim James. Hall is responding on James’ behalf to rumors I noted in this week’s column—that GOP candidate Bill Johnson, who has been an increasingly vocal and frequent critic of Gov. Bob Riley, may be attacking Riley’s record on James’ behalf in exchange for a position in a James administration.

Here’s the statement:

This concerns recent rumors that Tim James and those connected with his gubernatorial campaign are somehow connected with statements from Bill Johnson. These rumors are false and without any basis in fact. Bill Johnson has in recent weeks has publicly criticized Governor Bob Riley. Tim James doesn’t share in those sentiments expressed by Mr. Johnson, nor has he in any way, shape or form encouraged those comments.

Governor Riley has admirably served the people of Alabama. Like the two terms of former Governor Fob James, the Riley administration remains untainted by scandal.

Republican gubernatorial candidates would do well to support Governor Riley in the final year of his administration, as his popularity serves as an example to the people of Alabama that electing a Republican governor in 2010 would continue ethical and honest government.  In light of yesterday’s conviction of Democrat Mayor Larry Langford of Birmingham, along with convictions of several other Alabama Democrat officials in 2009, people are especially sensitive to the importance of ethics in government.

For what it’s worth, I noted in the column that the best way to refute these rumors would be for James to state clearly that he would not offer Johnson a role in his administration, and for Johnson to say that he wouldn’t accept one if it was offered.

You see the James statement in its entirety above. To date, I haven’t heard anything from the Johnson camp on the rumor.

In other news, James has decided to sign the Madison County gas tax pledge we have discussed here over the past few weeks. More on that later.

Trouble on the horizon for health care efforts?

By Jennifer J. Foster

Harry Reid’s SURPRISE!! GOTCHA, SEN. SNOWE!!/maybe-you-can-opt-out public option plan is getting all the attention, but trouble of a different kind is brewing on the health care front.

I have been talking here on a regular basis about the concerns millions of Americans have about the role abortion will play in any government-funded health care option. Liberals, spokespeople for abortion rights groups and even President Obama’s own staff insist that their concerns—that taxpayer money could end up paying for abortions for women covered under the government option—are unfounded.

As I have said on many occasions, their concerns are easy enough to assuage. Just put language into the bill that specifically forbids such funding.

It hasn’t happened.

While Reid runs around the Senate trying to hold his fingers in the dam of the propects of a near-certain filibuster against his opt-out plan, on the House side, Nancy Pelosi has a lot of work to do to line up passage for the plan. Speculation abounded over the weekend that Pelosi was just a few votes shy of having enough.

When it comes down to it, Pelosi will likely have a harder time keeping her caucus together than Reid will. Conventional wisdom is that this is because of the concerns conservative Democrats have with the public option and the program’s cost.

That’s true. But there is more.

From The Hill:

Approximately 40 House Democrats are prepared to block healthcare reform legislation from coming to the floor should the bill include federal subsidies for abortions, said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) Friday ...

The group of 40 would join House Republicans in voting against procedural measure that would draft rules for debating the bill on the House floor. Passage of the measure is necessary for the House to hold a floor vote.

“There’s about 40 like-minded Democrats like myself—we’ll try to take down the rule,“ Stupak said. “If all 40 of us vote in a bloc against the rule—because we think the Republicans will join us—we can defeat the rule. The magic number is 218. If we can have 218 votes against the rule, we win.”

With 177 Republicans in the House, Stupak would need at least 41 Democrats to cross the aisle and vote against the rule. Stupak’s amendment was originally defeated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee during mark-up.

Notice that Stupak says “about 40 like-minded Democrats” (emphasis mine). If this comes to a vote, it’s going to come down to who’s on the floor while the board is open. Everyone knows this, so Stupak is holding his cards close to the vest.

(Incidentally, I wonder if Alabama’s own Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith are among that 40. Staffers for them, let’s hear from you on this.)

So what has these Democrats upset enough to devise a plan to scuttle the entire bill?

Under language in the Energy and Commerce proposal, one health plan in each health care “exchange” that sells public health insurance must provide coverage for abortion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is currently in the process of merging the House’s three health bills ...

SIDEBAR: Did you get that? “MUST PROVIDE COVERAGE for abortion.“ Someone please point this out to Melody Barnes so she can be as informed as the rest of us. END SIDEBAR

Stupak, who is conservative on social issues, told CNS News that he has organized the voting bloc to support his amendment that would strip the abortion provisions from the legislation. House Rules Committee chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), according to Stupak, said that there is “no way” her panel would provide a vote for his amendment.

Hmm. Louise Slaughter, what is more important to you: Health care reform, or protecting one of the two most divisive components at the expense of that reform?

Congressmen and women, if you are out there, strip the language. Don’t sacrifice—or risk sacrificing—whatever progress can be made on reform on the altar of divisive ideology.

President Obama wants us to find consensus on this issue. Forcing mandated abortion coverage down the throats of pro-life Americans this way is not, presumably, what he had in mind.

And for that matter, President Obama, where are you on this? Are you for really for consensus? This would be a good time to put those words into action.

Late word yesterday was that House Democrats had reached agreement on a $894 billion plan that includes the public option. But in reporting the deal (and a press conference in the offing this morning), the Associated Press noted:

Democratic leaders still faced disputes over prohibiting taxpayer money for abortions and health care for illegal immigrants, issues they hoped to resolve after the bill’s unveiling.

It’s unclear to me how House Democrats could reach a deal if the issue that has 40-some of them ready to block the bill remains unresolved.

On another note, this effort by pro-life Democrats highlights their growing influence in Washington. I have told you before about Democrats for Life. Yes, they are out there. The national Democratic Party doesn’t like to acknowledge them, but they are there.

And they know the process.

We have talked before about how the Democrats’ expanded majority in Congress is built on moderate and conservative Democrats who beat incumbent Republicans or won open seats being vacated by GOP members (see Bright and Griffith, above). That construction has consequences: The ballooning deficit is one of them; this fissure over abortion is another.

That’s some of why the midterms are going to be more interesting and fun to watch than most people think.

See also:

“Abortion issue still clouding health care bill,“ blog post from Sept. 29

PolitiFact: More than Snopes for politicos

By Jennifer J. Foster

If you aren’t familiar with PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning truth project of the St. Petersburg Times, you should be.

Yes, when it was originally founded, its purpose was to serve as a truth patrol of sorts for political charges, not unlike Snopes.com has become for e-mail rumors of all kinds.

The idea was to put journalists—trained professionals who know how to investigate, research and read between the lines—in charge of separating the fact from fiction during the 2008 presidential election, then use the platform of the Times, one of the country’s best newspapers, to set the record straight.

It was an idea that was as terrific as it was straightforward. It really shouldn’t have been a surprise when it took off ... and then, when it won journalism’s biggest and most prestigious prize.

But PolitiFact has become more. Building off of its success, it is now a clearinghouse for all sorts of useful information, including a running record of President Obama’s achievements as measured against his campaign promises, among other features.

The Truth-O-Meter is still there—with a nice trademark, of course—and readers can track flip-floppers and pundits alongside the performance of the president himself.

Speaking of pundits, PolitiFact investigators studied recent statements of three of America’s most prominent talkers.

Guess what? They all failed the Truth-O-Meter.

Check it out at PolitiFact.com.

Make your visit a habit. You’ll learn a lot—and that is the truth.