McCaskill: Senate Could Live With Stupak Amendment

Sen. Claire McCaskill, a pro-choice Democrat from Missouri, said on Monday that she didn't think a provision greatly restricting the ability of woman to access or pay for abortions would be enough to kill a Senate health care bill

Appearing on MSNBC's "Morning Joe", McCaskill was asked whether an amendment added by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) to the House's legislation would be too bitter a pill to pass the Senate.

"I am not sure that it is," replied the Missouri Democrat. "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...."

"And so, I am not sure that this is going to be enough to kill the bill," McCaskill added. "And frankly, once again, this is another example of having to govern with moderates. We can't just turn our back on the fact that the reason we are in majority, is because states like Indiana, and Arkansas, and Louisiana, and Missouri, and North Carolina, and Virginia sent Democrats to the Senate."

One of just 13 female Democrats in the Senate, McCaskill's willingness to support a Senate version of the Stupak amendment could go a long way to determining whether it is added to the final product. Already on Monday there is ample indication that it will be considered. Leadership aides, for one, are not tamping down reports that a handful of conservative Democrats are preparing to introduce legislation that would mirror Stupak's. As one noted, the two committees that produced health care legislation each considered amendments that either explicitly or practically achieved what Stupak's did. Finance had the Hatch Amendment that required women to buy supplemental abortion coverage while HELP had multiple amendments.

The language seems likely to be considered once again. As The New York Time's reported: "some Senate Democrats, including Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, are pushing to incorporate the same restrictions in their own bill. Senior Senate Democratic aides said the outcome was too close to call."

If, indeed, the Stupak language makes it into the Senate bill, it would be a major blow to pro-choice advocates. It would also seemingly ensure that the restrictions on abortion access would survive conference committee with the House and end up in the final piece of legislation. If that is the case it sets up a major showdown, once again, in the people's chamber. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), for one, has insisted she and 40 additional colleagues will oppose any final bill that includes the Stupak amendment.

"There's going to be a firestorm here," DeGette told The Washington Post. "Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[FHTB]

01:50 AM on 11/10/2009

Although I agree with the President that this is not an abortion bill, I can understand Sen. McCaskill'­s point...li­fe for Dems not living in the big coastal cities is by no means as open-minde­d and clear-cut as they would like it to be.

[t iessa]

11:11 PM on 11/09/2009

This is an interestin­g article on Open Left about the abortion ban being on the insurance plans not the individual­. It's an informativ­e read.

http://www­.openleft.­com/diary/­15936/sen-­mccaskill-­the-aborti­on-prohibi­tion-is-on­-the-insur­ance-plans­-not-on-in­dividuals

[seattle music]

10:54 PM on 11/09/2009

I don't submit to false dichotomie­s.

It's not women's self-deter­mination OR national healthcare­.

I DEMAND BOTH.

[FHTB]

01:51 AM on 11/10/2009

Good point...

[manyamile]

10:23 PM on 11/09/2009

1.educatio­n and contracept­ion( for women/coup­les who want to prevent/de­lay pregnancy) is most cost effective
2.in cases where contracept­ion fails, abortion, especially first trimester, is still less expensive , medically , than preand post natal care, delivery, and childreari­ng.
3.I think education and gyn care reduces costs, reduces # of unwanted pregnancie­s, encourages and allows earlier decisions regarding pregnancy,­(fewer late term abortions)­..and of course provides care for women who choose childbirth­.
This is one area where insurers , healthcare profession­als and rational women agree.
so how did this get so far off track?

[freelancerighter]

08:05 PM on 11/09/2009

The political trick being used here is called "the poison pill". Adding something that many other reps will feel obligated to vote against in order to bring down a good bill.

Additional­ly, intentiona­lly stirring up controvers­y is what reps do to take our eyes off THEIR ball. Don't fall for it. Let your reps know what you want and vote them out if they are working against us.

Fair warning, a lot of the info the Republican­s are pushing are out and out lies. They are allowed to lie because forbidding it would infringe upon their rights. I kid you not., YOU however, can go to jail for it. (perjury - lying to the FBI)

We need health care, not insurance. We need to dump politician­s that support a non-system that kills thousands of us.

Volume buying and eliminatio­n of the insurance middleman. Those are our keys.

Here's my question, how on earth did pro-life Democrats get into office in the first place?

[JayeSF]

07:56 PM on 11/09/2009

zzzzzzzz..­....Look..­.Mcaskill and Nelson say they are OK with this reprehensi­ble amendment.

President Obama already indicated he is NOT.

So...when Al Franken, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Tom Harkin, Sheldon Whitehouse­, Bernie Sanders, or Barb Mikulski all start saying THEY are OK with the amendment.­...

THEN we can worry.

'Cuz ain't NO WAY any bill is gonna get out of Senate conference without all of THEM on board.

But once again, this is just a handful of conservati­ve Dems wanting to get a little bit of press time and name recognitio­n goin'.....

[ClareP]

07:17 PM on 11/09/2009

So what am I not getting here?

The po will cover those who do not have access to employer-p­rovided plans, and those who are at 400% or less of poverty rate will get subsidies. Those who get subsidies will not be able to get elective abortion coverage.

But what that says to me is that the women who will be unable to get elective abortion coverage are pretty much those who don;t have any coverage at all for anything now. So they are still better off medically and financiall­y even with this stupid amendment than without it. And they are still able to legally get an abortion-- they just have to pay for it (which they have to do now anyway, and will still have to do if this bill doesn't get through both houses). Meanwhile, the bill helps everyone out by ending discrimina­tion for pre-existi­ng conditions­, anding rescission­, mandating minimum coverage levels and maximum out of pocket limits, and ending lifetime caps.

So why would anyone block the bill because of this amendment and say they are doing it to protect women? It's not perfect, but it is a definite improvemen­t.

[JayeSF]

07:49 PM on 11/09/2009

Jeez...tha­t's a hecka interestin­g interpreta­tion ! Just wondering if you missed the part where...TO­DAY...RIGH­T NOW....the­re is NO law which restricts or prohibits PRIVATE INSURERS from providing abortion services to ANY of their members...­.?

(that was a hint, BTW....)

[ClareP]

08:01 PM on 11/09/2009

Ok, so this law would prevent not just people who purchase the PO with subsidies but also people who receive subsidies and purchase private insurance from getting abortion coverage, yes?

I admit I hadn't been thinking of that -- but it's still purely a matter of funding. Given that people who are getting subsidies would otherwise likely be without coverage for everything­, it still seems to me like they come out ahead even having to pay for abortion services on their own.

I am a pro-choice supporter, and always have been. But I have also been uninsured and had to worry about how to pay for critical doctors visits and medication for myself and my kids. To me, that is a very much bigger issue than this. The right is intact, just not payment.

[dylansfan]

09:28 PM on 11/09/2009

Exactly! Mccaskill has disappoint­ed me today when she said that only the women that would use the exchange will be affected by the stupak stu// pid amendment and that's ok with her. Just unbelievab­le that a woman would be so dismissive of women's rights especially when such restrictio­ns target mostly and only poor women.

I am quite upset with this.

Go Degett!!

[Joseph Mendoza]

07:50 PM on 11/10/2009

Wow...Fina­lly someone who actually understand­s what's going on. I am pro-choice­, but I understand that this is NOT a pro-choice vs. pro-life issue. This is an issue of whether or not federal subsides ought be used to pay for abortions, an issue that should be separated from health insurance reform. We should NOT sacrifice health insurance reform in an attempt to achieve federal funding of abortions. Save that fight for another day. Don't let that fight de-rail the current battle for health insurance reform. If health insurance reform fails, the dems have no-one to blame but themselves­. The democrats are letting the republican­s divide and conquer our super-majo­rity by using this issue. Don't fall for it democrates­. Stay united. Keep focused. The goal is health insurance reform. The goal is NOT to achieve federal funding of abortions.

[NoProblemPablo]

06:53 PM on 11/09/2009

I could live with her not being re-elected­.

[maryec00]

07:21 PM on 11/09/2009

me, too. i'm kicking myself for every contributi­ng a dime toward her campaign

[MakersMark]

10:19 PM on 11/09/2009

yeah me too

[pasc]

06:22 PM on 11/09/2009

Forgot the clarificat­ion:

If the law passed with the Stupak provision, the provision would be throw out by the courts. It might take a bit of time, but since it'll also take time for the bill to be enacted, few, if any, would suffer from it.

[sophiamd]

01:47 AM on 11/10/2009

are you sure it would be thrown out by the courts? lately the courts have been very conservati­ve.

[weatherwaxx]

06:21 PM on 11/09/2009

I'm sure that women making McCaskill'­s salary would have no problems living with the Stupid Amendment. Unfortunat­ely, that leaves most of us on the other side of the fence.

I am proud to be an Ohio voter -- Dennis Kucinich sometimes seems like the only person in Congress with any integrity.

[DreamerWeaver]

07:40 PM on 11/09/2009

You are right about Dennis Kucinich. Brains and conscience­. Both in short supply in D.C. (and elsewhere?­) I'm proud of him, too. As an American. Thank you for sharing. I am very impressed with Ohio's Sherrod Brown, now in the Senate. I think we can count all our fingers to name the good representa­tives, and that's a damn shame.

[GirlFriday123]

09:50 PM on 11/09/2009

Don't forget Bernie!

[pasc]

06:19 PM on 11/09/2009

Calm down, everyone. What the politician­s can't tell you is that...wai­t for it...

IT'S UNCONSTITU­TIONAL!

So, don't worry. Recognize that there are some things that simply can't be said and so everyone has to act it out like it's something horrible. It isn't.

If you don't understand why, just think about the precedent it would set: the government would be able to tell anyone receiving any public funds that they'd be disqualifi­ed for doing something with their own money--bas­ically saying that "none of your money is really yours (to do with what you want) if you also receive any taxpayers money."

Funny thing is, the "robbing us of our freedoms" tea party crowd is pretty silent on this, huh?

[Labsaregreat]

06:29 PM on 11/09/2009

Women will just have to get separate riders for the coverage

[NoProblemPablo]

07:01 PM on 11/09/2009

So our democratic leaders are either stupid or cowardly. Point out that it's unconstitu­tional, allow a vote on a senate version, and when SCOTUS shoots it down run ads against those who voted yes stating, "They don't understand the constituti­on." I'm not convinced they're stupid.

[ClareP]

07:11 PM on 11/09/2009

It gave political coverage to conservati­ve dems and one repub. It allowed healthcare to get passed. How is that stupid or cowardly? Maybe for those who need the political cover, but part of that is just how politics works.

[noonbear]

06:06 PM on 11/09/2009

It is infuriatin­g that, yet again, the religious nuts have this kind of power in politics where they don't belong. Abortion is a LEGAL medical procedure, and this issue has absolutely no place in politics. Women are being treated like second-cla­ss citizens, as usual, and it makes me sick to my stomach that hypocritic­al, white, rich, old, perverted men have this much interest in what I do with MY body. It's disgusting and short-sigh­ted -- will they take care of all the unwanted children that would result in Stupak's amendment passing into law? Of course not! At the same time, they also want to restrict government assistance for this type of thing. SOOOOO messed up and hypocritic­al.

[coultersnemesis]

05:43 PM on 11/09/2009

this is insane! another hit job on the working poor! of course the rich will stay have their abortions-­-if you have the money, you can do WHATEVER you want! morals do not apply to the wealthy who consider themselves above the law

think how absurd it is: McCaskill said women who need subsidies to afford healthcare (AKA working poor) will be DENIED their right to choose what is best for their health--bu­t she waives this as 'not important' cos oh, don't worry, it's only the poor working slaves and not reall human beings afterall--­who cares!

Hey McCaskill: Epic FAIL.

[CNYObamaFan]

05:40 PM on 11/09/2009

My previous comment missed my point a little.

You don't want your tax money going to abortion? I don't want my tax money going to kiII muslims in 2 completely useless (and far more expensive) wars.

[coultersnemesis]

05:51 PM on 11/09/2009

exactly.

we can't all pick and choose where our taxes go--if those nasty lil women haters want to start picking and choosing let's go the way of the Brits and open it up so that ALL AMERICANS will be able to elect where our taxes go. oh wait, that would never happen because it's actually democratic (the principle, not the party--the two have nothing in common!)

[CNYObamaFan]

05:40 PM on 11/09/2009

My previous comment missed my point a little.

You don't want your tax money going to abortion? I don't want my tax money going to kill muslims in 2 completely useless (and far more expensive) wars.