McCaskill Opposes Adding Stupak Amendment To Senate Bill

Less than a day after saying the Senate could live with a health care amendment that greatly restricted a woman's access to abortion in the private insurance market, Sen. Claire McCaskill, (D-MO) announced she opposed such an amendment.

The Senator, on her twitter page, said that she objected to the language offered to the House health care bill by Sen. Bart Stupak (D-Mich). "[I] Don't think we should change current law which is no public $ for abortions, but amndmt goes too far limitng [sic] private funds too," her tweet read.

McCaskill is a pro-choice lawmaker from a generally toss-up political state. So her support for a Senate variation to the Stupak amendment would have given it a major boost. Already, other socially conservative Democratic lawmakers have hinted that they would back such a provision or even introduce it themselves.

During an appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Monday, McCaskill said she didn't think such an effort would be a bitter pill in the health care reform debate.

"I am not sure that it is," she said. "Obviously, I have been a pro-choice candidate for my entire political career, and obviously there is controversy always surrounding this issue. But we are talking about whether or not people that get public money can buy an insurance policy that has a coverage for abortion. And that is not the majority of America. The majority of America is not going to be getting subsidies from the government...."

That remark, of course, didn't approach the question of whether McCaskill herself would support the amendment if introduced. So her tweet isn't, necessarily, contradictory. It just suggests that adding Stupak-like language to the Senate bill is more of an uphill climb than it seemed.

Comments

[Da-king]

11:56 AM on 11/10/2009

Make up your mind woman.

[llmitchellb]

11:02 AM on 11/10/2009

This is where twitter and facebook and email and phone calls come in handy!!!

[deezus]

10:29 AM on 11/10/2009

I don't see the problem with the Stupak amendment. It is not like it bans abortion, it just makes those who want them, pay for them. Seems like the perfect compromise. First, it gives the abortion foes what they want, not having to pay for or support something they don't agree with. Second, it gives the abortion supporters what they want, to make abortion their personal business, not the taxpayers'. Why would anyone oppose this?

[starlady7]

11:10 AM on 11/10/2009

So, if you do not agree with War then you do not have to contribute taxes to the National Fund????
There are a lot of Government spending that I do not agree with, but am required to pay for! Here with the Stupak amendment, it goes further than the HYDE Amendment which ALREADY BANNED Federal money for abortion. It bans the participant from even getting PRIVATE Insurance coverage with their own money!!! If everyone OPT"ED out of paying for what they disagreed with this government, this country would fall apart!!!

It is NOT the perfect compromise since most PRIVATE Insurers would probablely drop coverage and a LEGAL Medical Procedure would become unavailable or extremely difficult to obtain!!!! These anti-Choice people are trying to go through the backdoor to weaken Roe vs Wade and set back Women's Rights by decades! Something women fought for long and hard!

Let's make MEN's Reproductive Health Care None Coverable too! NO coverage for Prostate check-ups, Prostate Cancer, Viagra, etc. Probablely, many unwanted pregnancies come from the use of Viagra! Why would I want to pay for some man's genital health???

[deezus]

11:41 AM on 11/10/2009

That is fine with me, remove all federal funding and coverage from everyone's reproductive health. Problem solved!

[trishinpitt]

01:05 PM on 11/10/2009

Not all abortions are a matter of choice...or as you so elegantly put it, "It gives the abortion supporters what they want"...... how generous!

Who in their right mind wants an abortion? Who in their right mind chooses to have such an invasive procedure just for kicks? It ain't like it's plastic surgery.

Most women agonize over the decision and that's even when their own life is at stake. Do you think if a woman is told that if she carries a baby to term she could die WANTS to have an abortion?

Go out and look up some of the stories of abortion... they aren't always some bimbo who forgot to use birth control.... some of those stories include rape, incest, underaged girls who are too young to really carry a baby to term, women with cancer who can't get their treatment because they are pregnant, women who's children are stillborn but their 18th century doctor thinks it's wrong to take the baby now and wants the woman to carry the stillborn fetus to term...

[Marnie1]

09:36 AM on 11/10/2009

There are a number of complex issues that the amendment does not address.
The most obvious is wealth. The wealthy will always have access to what that want, even if they have to go overseas to get it.

Depending on the specific wording of the amendment, also abandoned are women who have become impregnated but whose pregnancies have gone seriously wrong.
Embryos may die in utero, there are ectopic pregnancies, and hydatidiform mole. All grow from fertilized ova, all will fail to produce a live birth, all are life threatening to the mother, and all can cause the loss of reproductive capacity for the mother.
Yet the medical correction for all these problems involves the "untimely" removal of tissue that that has resulted from growth of a fertilized ova now has legal rights equal to the mother’s.
(Taken to the extreme that could also apply to a tumor, as it is tissue derived ultimately from a fertilized ova.)
This pandering to the woman hating right and their pet Blue Mongrels is about as offensive at it gets or is the result of a callous stupidity that is professional negligence on a grand scale.

Law makers in ignorance of the law. That’s no way to run a country.
Healthcare legislators in ignorance of illness. That’s no way to design a health care system.
Randy old men making laws that punish young women for being young and women and fertile. Words cannot express how disgusting that image is.

[GoCards1978]

08:39 AM on 11/10/2009

The Stupid Amendment doesn't seem like it would pass Constitutional muster since everyone is required to buy health insurance.

[Colorado Bobby]

07:47 AM on 11/10/2009

The other issue here that has not been addressed is the TAX status of "C" Street boys club, which seems to be pushing its political & social & religious agendas through the members who live there, Stupak being just one. This low rent frat house needs to have its "church" status revoked, and they need to pay their fair share of taxes to DC.

[Colorado Bobby]

07:36 AM on 11/10/2009

Stand Tall Senator. Women's rights are hard won, and too easily lost by C street radicals like Stupak.

[hsr0601]

07:28 AM on 11/10/2009

I personally think it probably makes sense after final passage of the historic bill, Congress takes time to discuss abortion coverage representing women right in greater depth.

[ktomas]

06:37 AM on 11/10/2009

It seems like McCaskill finally got around to reading the 'Stupid' Amendment. The earlier interview on Morning Joe seemed like she hadn't studied the specific wording yet.

[FHTB]

07:18 AM on 11/10/2009

Claire is easily swayed...I recall how she had no problem taking Obama's cash for being a superdelegate for him...I have never trusted her, and I think Missourians need to oust this woman who seems to turn on a dime...one cannot live with Stupak, Claire...get it right the first time!

[jamilk99]

07:31 AM on 11/10/2009

What are you talking about? Where's the evidence that Obama paid her or anyone else to be a superdelegate? As I recall, she was one of the first superdelegates to support him.
Plus, supporting the Stupak Amendment might be smart for her politically since Missouri is generally a conservative state.

[jwredd]

08:53 AM on 11/10/2009

"I recall how she had no problem taking Obama's cash for being a superdelegate for him"

Dude that's not even cynical, it's just plain stoopid and takes the wind out of any argument you might be making.

[1088]

05:45 AM on 11/10/2009

We need to vote out those DINO and replace with real Dems, for these guys are blocking the Admin agenda to go forward.

[gayleg]

02:56 AM on 11/10/2009

You're right. She's now repeating what Obama just said.

He wants to keep the status quo and so does she. Even though it includes the rancid Hyde Amendment, one of the cruelest, classist laws ever passed.

Status Quo we can believe in! Fired up and ready for status quo!

[ktomas]

06:47 AM on 11/10/2009

I think what the President is actually saying is that dealing with abortion rights needs to be a separate issue, and he's right. The 'Stupid' Amendment basically derails the overall concept of health care reform to focus on a wedge issue that's always come up a winner for neo-cons to concern troll over. The health care reform bill wasn't designed to address the Hyde Amendment either.

[jwredd]

08:57 AM on 11/10/2009

Also his "status quo" comment has been completely taken out of context. He clearly said it to mean he wanted everyone who liked their current insurance to be able to keep it as it is. There are other things he can be ridiculed for but this is not it.

[cleffnote]

02:45 AM on 11/10/2009

So who are the Republicans now investing in wire clothes hangers? Follow the money. What a bunch of jerks. Congress, you are failing your constituents.

[krifos]

02:30 AM on 11/10/2009

Last time I checked abortion was legal. You may not agree with it but it is. Work on changing the law if you have a problem w/ it. Until then it is a legal medical procedure and should be covered by all insurances.

[StillAmused]

02:54 AM on 11/10/2009

Funny 'bout that, huh?

... but what's a little Constitution-bending -- with a nudge-nudge, wink-wink from the Supreme Court -- if it'll placate the good folks clinging, by their fingernails, to the rightmost edge of the Earth?

Seems pretty straight up... use Federal dollars, the law of the land applies. Anxious to hear Brother Antonin's and Brother Clarence's convincing insights on the subject.

[FHTB]

07:21 AM on 11/10/2009

LAW OF THE LAND...remember it...and all you religious loons better never forget it...you are NEVER going to make it otherwise...NEVER...so this bit of nonsense from the freaks who wish to impose their will on others they have no business doing need to shut up and sit down. Stupak is going the way of the Studebaker...

[jamilk99]

07:34 AM on 11/10/2009

It may be the law of the land that abortion is legal but it is also the law of the land that no federal funding is to be used for abortion.

[jamilk99]

07:34 AM on 11/10/2009

You want to force your will on others by forcing them to pay for abortion even though they morally object to it.

[Artemis34]

01:45 AM on 11/10/2009

Okay, well someone is getting in line.

Nothing good can come from a Stupak like amendment.

Anyway, congress is supposed to act in the interest of the people. Not in the interests of their church or the church that gives them the most money, and not in the interests of their personal religion.

"I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic." ~ John F. Kennedy

[FHTB]

07:24 AM on 11/10/2009

I also think Obama needs to remember this when he remains silent about gay marriage laws...not a peep from him about Maine. Or California...get on board or be left on the scrapheap of those who were left behind. Religion has no place in decisions made in any kind of decision in our secular government...when it does, it needs to be beaten back with a vigor that will stun any last zealot.

[PetrBuben]

01:33 AM on 11/10/2009

No public $$ for abortions? What does that mean? That only rich republicans can have abortions?
And we cannot talk about "abortions" only as such, because there are 2 very different types -

1. abortion medically necessary -rape, incest, threat to health or life of woman
In this case, federal $$ SHOULD be used, and abortion should be mandatory by law

2. abortion per decision
here this should be legal, in early stages, but discouraged. it is practically non issue, as there should be day-after pill - for having WANTED children, not unwanted

http://newsrecord.wordpress.com