ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

GOP lawmaker shrieks ‘baby killer’ at pro-life Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak.

When House Republicans tried to use a motion to recommit to send the reconciliation package of health reforms back to committee to essentially kill the bill, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) gave a passionate speech urging his colleagues not to fall for the ploy. Stupak said that Democrats have moved a pro-life bill in every way, by restricting taxpayer funds to abortion and by providing millions of Americans will quality health insurance. However, CNN is reporting that as Stupak gave his speech, a Republican lawmaker yelled “baby killer” at him. Murmurs were heard from the Democratic side of the aisle, and a Democratic lawmaker shouted “who said that?” No Republican answered. Watch it:

CNN’s David Gergen observed that Republicans had joined rowdy, and at times vulgar, tea party protesters all weekend in rallying against the bill. He warned that the heavy influence of the tea parties, Rush Limbaugh, and other extreme right-wing voices is dangerous for the Republicans politically.

Watch HuffPost’s video of the shouted remark.

Update

Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), who was initially suspected as the GOP lawmaker who screamed “baby killer” at Stupak, told reporters that he believed that it came from a member sitting a row behind him, where the Texas Republicans usually sit. “The people who know won’t give it up,” Campbell told reporters. He said the remark, which was uttered in a “Southern accent,” was “clear as a bell.”


Update

,Republican Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) said he heard the scream but wouldn’t say who was responsible. “I can make a guess,” Barton told reporters. Rep. David Obey (D-WI), who was in the chair at the time, said he saw the Republican who shout out “baby killer,” but he wouldn’t say who it was, either. “I think members have a right to make an idiot of themselves once without being exposed,” he said.


Update

,Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said it wasn’t him. “I have no idea who yelled it because they were seated behind me and the House was packed,” he said. “Whoever said it was obviously upset, but it was inappropriate for them to yell that.”


Update

,Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Tom Price (R-GA) denied a Republican congressman made the remarks.


Update

[/up

Politics

House approves health care reform by vote of 219-212.

Moments ago, the House of Representatives passed the Senate health care reform bill by a vote of 219-212, approving the most sweeping domestic legislation since Medicare. “Senator Kennedy wrote that access to health care was the great unfinished business of our society – that is, until today,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Once the bill reached 215 votes, members began chanting “one more vote” and the chamber erupted in applause. Members excitedly counted down the last few seconds of the vote and started began chanting “yes we can.” Watch it:

More at The Wonk Room.

Update

The House vote 220-211 to pass a reconciliation package making changes to the Senate health care overhaul.


Update

,The following Democrats voted against the House’s effort to pass the Senate health care bill: Adler, Altmire, Arcuri, Barrow, Berry, Boren, Boucher, Bright, Chandler, Childers, A.Davis, L.Davis, C.Edwards, Herseth Sandlin, Holden, Kissell, Kratovil, Lipinski, Lynch, Marshall, Matheson, McIntyre, McMahon, Melancon, Minnick, Nye, Peterson, Ross, Shuler, Skelton, Space, Tanner, Taylor, Teague

Health

House Passes Senate Health Care Bill By Vote Of 219-212

ObamaWatching

The House of Representatives just passed the Senate health care reform bill by a vote of 219-212, approving the most sweeping domestic legislation since Medicare. “Senator Kennedy wrote that access to health care was the great unfinished business of our society – that is, until today,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Once the bill reached 215 votes, members began chanting “one more vote” and the chamber erupted in applause. Members excitedly counted down the last few seconds of the vote and started began chanting “yes we can.” Watch it:

Moments later, Republicans offered a Motion to Recommit re-stating the current Hyde restrictions, in an effort to win over pro-life Democrats and send the bill back to committee. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) stood up to condemn the motion. “The motion to recommit purports to be a right to life motion, in the spirit of the Stupak amendment. But as the author of the Stupak amendment, this motion is nothing more than an opportunity to continue to deny 32 million Americans health care,” Stupak said. “This motion is really to politicize life, not promote life.”

The Senate could take up the reconciliation package as early as Tuesday, where Republicans are already threatening to derail its passage. “[T]he House reconciliation bill may be brought down by the 310(g) point of order in the Senate,” Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) said. “House Democrats should be alarmed by this latest development, since the survival of the reconciliation bill is clearly at risk in the Senate.”

Update

The Reconciliation Bill has also passed the House by a vote of 220-211.


Update

,President Obama: “At a time when the pundits said it was no longer possible, we rose above the weight of our politics…This is what change looks like.” Also stressed that the “job is not done.” The Senate will take up the reconciliation package on Tuesday.


Update

,Pelosi at presser: “This act that was passed tonight was an all-American act, honoring our founders’ commitment to the future.”

Yglesias

Perspective

Now that it’s done, Barack Obama will go down in history as one of America’s finest presidents. It’s always possible of course that, like LBJ, he’ll get involved in some unrelated fiasco that mars his reputation. But fundamentally, he’s reshaped the policy landscape in a way that no progressive politician has done in decades.

Under the circumstances, it’s in some ways crazy to realize the scope of things still on the congress’ plate. The House has already passed major legislation dealing with climate change and financial regulation, and the president is also committed to significant reform of K-12 education and the immigration system.

Yglesias

A Song for Jim DeMint

Joke stolen from Jonathan Bradley and Dave Weigel:

Of course Swedes have been living for decades now in the sort of bleak tyranny where illness doesn’t cause people to go bankrupt.

Yglesias

The Stupak Deal

180px-stethoscope-2

I’ve spent a while trying to figure out what it is Bart Stupak got in the course of his executive order “compromise” on abortion, and as best I can tell the answer is nothing. Or as Athenae < href="http://www.first-draft.com/2010/03/bart-got-what-he-wanted.html">puts it he got attention. I think what primarily happened is that with his bloc dissolving, Stupak cut a face-saving deal that mostly gave him an opportunity for “walking back from some of his past arguments”.

The problem with Stupack’s position in this has been that current law already reflects what he wants and the proposal he was objecting to also already reflects what he wants. If I wrote the laws, abortion would be treated like the bona fide medical procedure it is, and there’d be no reason that government-subsidized insurance plans couldn’t offer it. But I don’t write the laws, existing law reflects unjust discrimination against abortion services, and Obama’s proposals have always included a commitment to maintain the status quo. The political judgment that revisiting the Hyde Amendment in the middle of a giant fight about the overall structure of the insurance market was a bad idea strikes me as correct. But as a result of that, Stupak has been spending all this time huffing and puffing over basically nothing. In the end, Obama agreed to issue an executive order that basically amounts to pinky swearing that the Hyde rules are still in effect, but that’s always been his position. In exchange, Stupak agreed to acknowledge that the proposal actually does what everyone’s been saying it does, but he gets to walk away without admitting that he’s been wrong about this for a while now.

Yglesias

Rep Steve King (R-Iowa) Says Racism and Homophobia Are Okay With Him

160px-Steve_King,_official_Congressional_photo_portrait

We’ve already heard Rep Devin Nunes’ take the view that shouting racist and homophobic epithets at members of congress is okay because House Democrats are using “totalitarian tactics” to pass health reform. Newt Gingrich also explained that members shouldn’t vote for health reform because that would be like voting for the Civil Rights Act.

But for the latest and greatest in racial cluelessness from members of Congress, we’ll have to turn to Iowa Republican Steve King who had this to say on the subject of calling members of congress “faggots” and “niggers”:

“I just don’t think it’s anything,” King said, emphasizing that the incidents were isolated. “There are a lot of places in this country that I couldn’t walk through. I wouldn’t live to get to the other end of it.”

The incidents were isolated. But how isolated were the sentiments behind them? If I understand King correctly, he seems to be saying that he believes a white person such as himself couldn’t walk through a black neighborhood without being killed. On the off chance that this is simple confusion on his part, I’d like to assure him that this is false. Fortunately we have plenty of majority-black neighborhood right here in Washington, DC. Maybe Rep King and I could take a stroll through one of them one of these days if he’d like.

Health

Stupak Agrees To Executive Order On Abortion, ‘We’re Well Past 216′

Moments ago, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) officially announced that he will vote in favor of the health care reform bill after receiving assurances from the White House that the President will issue an executive order re-stating the current prohibitions against abortion funding. “I’m pleased to announce that we have an agreement and it’s with the help of the President, the Speaker, we were able to come with an agreement to protect the sanctity of life in the health care reform that there will be no public funding of abortion in this legislation,” Stupak said at a press conference, before announcing, “we’re well past 216″:

STUPAK: There has been some question raised by different groups that in this health care reform package, that somehow, some way, the abortions could be preformed at the community health centers. The President’s executive order makes it very clear that will not happen. There is some question that underneath in this bill, that somehow, you could pay for abortions with the new funds being appropriated for the community health centers. That is not possible with this executive order. There was concerns in this legislation that the conscious clause, that those who might have religious or moral objections….would somehow be co-opted or their values be lessened underneath this legislation. The President makes it clear the conscience clause will always be available and it will be in force of law.

“We have assurances from the President and others that he will not rip this up tomorrow,” Stupak said. “The President has put his commitment in writing.” Watch it:

Stupak said that he would have preferred to vote on a separate measure prohibiting federal funding for abortion, but recognized that it could not pass in the Senate. “The reality is, we can’t pass it in the Senate…we cannot get more than 45 pro-life votes.” “The Bishops are right. Statutory law is better than executive order. But we can’t get there,” he said, referring to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ opposition to the executive order. “This is just as good as statutory language,” Stupak insisted.

To some degree, however, Stupak is walking back from some of his past arguments. He had previously claimed that if a woman uses federal subsidies to pay for a basic benefit, she would have more private money available to fund her abortion. Or, alternatively, “premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars.” Now, he is walking back from his “money is fungible” argument.

The White House released the text of the executive order just moments before Stupak’s press conference began and from what I can tell, it reinforces the Nelson compromise in the Senate bill and reaffirms that federal funding cannot be used to fund abortions within the exchanges or community health care centers. “Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment,” the order reads.” The order also directs “the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements.”

Yglesias

Wittgenstein Explains the House Rules Committee

Some people have been wondering how it is that the House Rules Committee can just make up whatever rules it wants. Fortunately, Wittgenstein tackled this question in his famous Philosophical Investigations:

What do I call ‘The rule according to which he proceeds’?— The hypothesis that satisfactorily describes his use of words, which we observe; or the rule which he looks up when he uses signs; or the one which he gives us in reply if we ask him what his rule is? — But what if observation does not clearly reveal any rule, and the question brings none to light? — For he did indeed give me an explanation when I asked him what he meant by “N”, but he was prepared to withdraw this explanation and alter it. — So how am I to determine the rule according to which he is playing? He does not know it himself. — Or, more correctly, what is left for the expression “the rule according to which he proceeeds” to say?

Something for Daniel Foster to chew on.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up