Kildee vs. Stupak and Health Care’s Final Countdown

Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.) | Flickr/<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/edlabordems/4442735869/">edlabordems</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.

UPDATED, 11:00 AM EST Saturday

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) wants pro-life Dems to join him in voting against the Democrats’ health care bill unless there are significant abortion restrictions. But Stupak has a surprising obstacle in his path: his old friend Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.). Kildee isn’t just opting out of his pal’s voting bloc: He told reporters on Friday that he’s been working hard to convince other anti-abortion Democrats to abandon Stupak’s effort. As the final hours before the vote tick down, the battle between these two Democrats could determine the fate of the party’s biggest legislative priority.

Kildee and Stupak have much in common. They’re both pro-life Democrats from Michigan. They’re been social and political comrades for years. Kildee, who’s 81, knew the 58-year-old Stupak when Stupak was a young Michigan state trooper. But for now, at least, the two lawmakers are on opposite sides of the dramatic health care tussle.

Stupak, who sponsored a strict anti-abortion amendment that was added to the House version of the health care reform bill, maintains that the Senate’s plan (which doesn’t contain his amendment) allows for federal funding of abortions. Kildee disagrees. Neither doubts the sincerity of the others’ beliefs—at least according to Kildee. But while Stupak is trying to hold together a bloc of pro-life Dems that he claims will join him in voting against the Senate bill, Kildee has been pressing other members to accept his position that the Senate bill is “without any question” pro-life.

“I’ve always been pro-life,” Kildee said, adding, “I’m 81 years old and I’m not going to change my mind now. I’m not going to jeopardize my eternal soul.” Confidence in his own position has allowed Kildee to lobby “a number” of other anti-abortion Democrats to vote for the legislation, which is scheduled to come up for a vote on Sunday afternoon. “God willing, I’ve changed a few votes,” Kildee remarked.

But he hasn’t convinced Stupak. “We’ve agreed to disagree,” Kildee said. Recently, Stupak has been making noise about a possible compromise (perhaps his friend’s arguments are having an impact), and multiple outlets reported on Friday night that Speaker Nancy Pelosi had struck a deal with Stupak to allow a vote on a “concurrent resolution.” The New York Timesexplained how this might work:

[The deal] would add tougher abortion restrictions to the bill after it is approved but before it is sent to the president — a technique typically used to make minor or technical changes with the consent of both chambers, an unlikely prospect.

But the House pro-choice caucus threatened to bolt en masse, and Stupak later cancelled a press conference he had planned for Saturday morning. That was probably a smart strategic move. Holding a last-minute presser would mean Stupak would face put-up-or-shut-up time. If he can produce at a press conference—or any other time—the 11 or 12 House Democrats he has claimed are with him, health care reform could be in serious trouble. If his allies are much less than that, the bill’s passage could become a foregone conclusion. Half-dozen or so House Democrats who voted against the bill in November have announced they will vote for the Senate bill on Sunday, and that spell problems for Stupak. If his gang is much smaller than the group of no-to-yes switchers, Stupak will be irrelevant. (I’m on the Hill Saturday to count Stupak’s allies, so stay tuned.)

Stupak’s public waffling about what once seemed to be an unshakeable stand has lcaused some vote-counters to wonder whether the congressman wants to vote for health care reform, realizing he’s wrong about the bill funding abortion, but has backed himself into a corner. With that in mind, I asked Kildee about Stupak’s statement that he relies on groups like the National Right to Life Committee and Focus on the Family (groups that have generally opposed the Democrats’ health care reform plans) for guidance. Kildee questioned the wisdom of depending on these outfits. Members of Congress have to be wary of groups that “start out with a premise and only seek out facts that support their premise,” Kildee warned. He added, “You have to know where they come from. You have to know what their purpose is—they gather information that supports their purpose.”

Some of the individuals and groups that have endorsed Kildee’s argument that the Senate bill is sufficiently anti-abortion came to the Hill on Friday to back Kildee. These pro-lifers included nuns who signed a letter supporting the bill; Professor Tim Jost, an expert on health law who has written detailed analyses of the Senate health care bill’s abortion provisions; and other academic and faith leaders. After the press conference, several of the attendees, including Jost, headed over to the office of Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.). Ellsworth, who had been considered a potential member of Stupak’s bloc, announced on Friday afternoon that he would vote for the Senate bill. He cited the nuns’ letter as evidence that the bill doesn’t fund abortion.

President Barack Obama talks to a Member of Congress. | White House photo/Pete Souza (Government Work).President Barack Obama talks to a Member of Congress. | White House photo/Pete Souza (Government Work).There’s one more factor that could influence Stupak and other wavering House Dems: President Barack Obama. The White House has been eagerly telling reporters that the president is working the phones, trying to get members of Congress on board with his plan. (He’s apparently had 64 meetings or phone calls will members of Congress on health care reform during this week.) They even went so far as to release the photo to the right, of Obama making a call during his trip back to the White House after a health care rally Friday.

On Saturday, the president will continue his pitch in person. He and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will address a meeting of House Democrats at 3 p.m. We’ll be there to let you know how it goes.

 

 

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