Bart Stupak’s Last Stand

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.): You Betcha! | Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bdr1/2974032670/">Brian Rendel</a> (<a href="http://www.creativecommons.org">Creative Commons</a>).

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


It’s decision time for Bart Stupak.

The Michigan Democrat has fought a long and public battle to include his preferred anti-abortion provisions in the final health care reform package. Now, as a final House vote looms on Sunday, Stupak may have lost.

Late Friday night, multiple outlets reported that Stupak had struck a deal with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to allow a vote that would add his language to the health care bill after it passed the House but before it was signed by the president. That maneuver is called the “enrollment corrections” procedure.

Many experts thought the unorthodox strategy was unworkable, because enrollment corrections are not generally used to make substantive changes to law. Using the procedure would probably lead to Stupak’s adjustments being stripped from the bill in the Senate. And even if the procedure was theoretically workable, it might have actually cost Pelosi votes, because the House pro-choice caucus threatened to bolt over the rumored deal.

So now an enrollment vote seems to be out of play. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters shortly after noon on Saturday that there would be “no separate votes” on the health care bill—neither on Stupak, nor, it seems, on Rep. Alan Grayson’s amendment reviving the public option. That suggests that Pelosi either 1) has the votes to pass the bill as-is, or 2) is hoping against hope that some of Stupak’s bloc—and some Democrats who voted against the House health care bill in November—will flip.

Either way, an alternative deal with Stupak himself is still possible—if Stupak is willing to accept something less than his ideal outcome. Although two Republicans told National Review‘s Robert Costa that Stupak told them he’s “finished with Pelosi,” Stupak’s spokeswoman told Politico Saturday morning that “discussions are continuing.” Even the White House seems willing to cut a deal: The New Republic‘s Jonathan Cohn has reported that an executive order clarifying that federal money wouldn’t be used to fund abortion is “on the table.”

None of this necessarily means that Pelosi didn’t want to make a deal with Stupak—it could be that she simply couldn’t. The enrollment corrections procedure was deeply problematic at best, and perhaps entirely unworkable. It was going to be difficult to convince the pro-choice caucus to vote for the bill if changes were made this late in the game.

If Pelosi can’t bring Stupak on board, the final vote is likely to be very tight. The fate of reform now largely depends on the ability of a few influential politicians—like pro-life Stupak friend Dale Kildee (D-Mich.) and Stupak mentor John Dingell (D-Mich.)—to peel off a few more members of Stupak’s bloc. Kildee, as I reported yesterday, is working to convince his pro-life colleagues to switch their votes. And Dingell has vowed to “defeat” his protege. On Sunday, we’ll find out who won.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate