Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Health Care Reform Passes in House 220-215

Saturday evening, The US House of Representatives passed HR 3962 by a vote of 220-215.

















1 Republican, Congressman Joseph Cao (R-LA) joined 219 Democrats, including our own Joseph Donnelly (D-IN), in passing the measure. Here is Congressman Donnelly's contact info so you can call and thank him:


South Bend: (574) 288-2780
Washington, DC (202) 225-3915

176 Republicans and 39 Democrats opposed the bill. The following Democrats voted against HR 3962.


Some suggest that their opposition came in light of the Stupak Amendment, which removes federal funding of abortions. If one of these members represents your district, I recommend that you give them a call expressing your disappointment (unless you agree with their decision).

John Adler (NJ)
Jason Altmire (PA)
Brian Baird (WA)
John Barrow (GA)
John Boccieri (OH)
Dan Boren (OK)
Rick Boucher (VA)
Allen Boyd (FL)
Bobby Bright (AL)
Ben Chandler (KT)
Travis Childers (MS)
Artur Davis (AL)
Lincoln Davis (TN)
Chet Edwards (TX)
Bart Gordon (TN)
Parker Griffith (AL)
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)
Tim Holden (PA)
Larry Kissell (NC)
Suzanne Kosmas (FL)
Frank Kratovil (MD)
Dennis Kucinich (OH)
Jim Marshall (GA)
Betsy Markey (CO)
Eric Massa (NY)
Jim Matheson(UT)
Mike McIntyre (NC)
Michael McMahon (NY)
Charlie Melancon (LA)
Walt Minnick (ID)
Scott Murphy (NY)
Glenn Nye (VA)
Collin Peterson (MN)
Mike Ross (AR)
Heath Shuler (NC)
Ike Skelton (MO)
John Tanner (TN)
Gene Taylor (MS)
Harry Teague (NM)

1 comment:

ShamRockNRoll said...

It should be noted that the Stupak amendment did not remove federal funding for abortions... the Hyde amendment, which has been on the books for years, did that. So there already was no direct federal funding of abortions, as the Hyde language is the law of the land.

The Stupak amendment went so far as to prevent any "indirect" funding in this bill from going to abortion services. Meaning if someone is given subsides to purchase private insurance, or insurance from the public option, that that money can't go towards abortion... meaning... Any insurance company that wants to receive customers from this legislation will have to stop covering abortion services. What this language does is effectively restrict access to safe and legal abortion services to the upper-middle class and wealthy who could afford to pay for those services in cash, as they would not be covered by insurance.

Clearly this goes much further than current law regarding abortion. I've been doing a lot of thinking on whether I am pro-life or pro-choice lately... I do not think the abortion issue can be successfully legislated one way or another really... but I'm not comfortable with anti-choice republicans and democrats using a healthcare reform bill to debate abortion, especially when this will clearly affect the lower classes.