Hey, there! Log in / Register
Did Steve Lynch just assure himself of opposition next year?
By adamg on Sat, 11/07/2009 - 10:59pm
Lynch was one of 64 Democrats in the House tonight to vote for the so-called Stupak amendment to bar even private insurers from paying for abortions if they take any money at all from the government.
Representatives Tsongas, Markey, Delahunt, Capuano, Tierney, Olver, Frank and McGovern all voted no. Rep. Neal voted along with Lynch.
UPDATE: Lynch then joined his Mass. colleagues to vote for the president's health-care package.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Lynch plays his cards close to his chest
As late as today Lynch would not answer questions about how he would vote on the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
I think the Stupak amendment means (low income) women who get their insurance (federally) subsidized through the connector may not get abortion services but rich people who do not get a subsidy can. Lynch voted for this amendment. Pro-choice people have a bone to pick with Stephen Lynch.
I agree with the last
I agree with the last comment made. There are dwindling numbers of aging anti-choice Catholics from his district.
He supported the final vote, however. I called at about 4pm to his office (as a constituent, rightfully so) and a muddled blank response was given; "He's still looking over it".
I think he will be fine...
I think he will be fine...
If this is what it takes to pass the bill I am willing to let it happen. All of those people who complain about it should start a fund that can be administered by Planned Parenthood and other organizations that will pay for abortions that are not permitted in the insurance (I believe those done by rape, incest and if giving birth will kill the mother/baby are covered.) Honestly any other reason outside of this scope is more of the "elective" variety where the person is doing it because they can not afford to have the baby/it is not the right time/the child was an accident etc. I will stand up for the right of a person to have an abortion for their own reasons but I am not going to pay for it unless there is a very good reason.
Twitter me this!
the problem i have with that...
... is that much health care is "elective". much of what we do to ourselves for medical reasons is not to save our life or because we overcame some horrible trauma. we do it for quality of life or because it might help later problems, or because we're unhappy, or afraid, or vain, or because we love medical procedures and the doctor recommended it. all reasons are kind of personal at the end.
if we reduced all covered health procedures to ones which were life-saving, i would see this argument. it would be consistent. but that's not how it works.
I will stand up for the
I will stand up for the right of a person to have an abortion for their own reasons but I am not going to pay for it unless there is a very good reason.
Personally, I disagree. I think that single-payer health care is the way to go with the decisions on what procedures should be used or not left up to individual patients and their doctors.
However, from the news coverage of the bill, you ought to standing up about now. Rep. Lynch & co. voted against the bill that would have allowed a health care provider which accepts federal funding to provide abortions provided that the entire cost for that procedure was borne by the patient; no taxpayer money would be involved. Instead, they wanted, and got, a bill that says that if a health care provider accepts even a penny of federal money, they cannot provide abortions no matter who pays; the patient must instead go to a different provider that doesn't so much as get a band-aid from the feds.
This goes way too far.
This isn't going to change
This isn't going to change anything about the Women's Right to Choose to grind up inconvenient pregnancies. The measure added to the Pelosi Economic Destruction Act of 2009 was simply a gimmick to give some of the more moderate Democrats political cover with their voters of conscience. As with Crap & Tax it's by no means a settled issue that it's going to get passed in the Senate, and even if it does, the eventual Senate bill is likely to be very different from what the House sneaked in on Saturday night.
As we all know ...
Melanoma, eclampsia, molar and tubal pregnancies, etc. are just inconvenient.
Yeah,
Yeah, we all know those are the main reasons that women get abortions.
Oh yeah
... we all know it's most certainly any and all of your business what women do with their personal bodies and medical choices.
Why?
Why do Republicans continue to want to keep government from getting involved in health care...but want to legislate away abortions?
Your first problem
...is assuming there's anything coherent or rational about these people.
C Street Clubhouse - moralizing hypocrites
Stupak is a member of C Street, a religious DC based group that wants the government to legislate their view of morality, a morality which they themselves feel is for everyone else but not themselves. (Video about C street)
Other members include
Sen. (R-KS) Sam Brownback,Sen. (R-OK) James Inhofe, Sen. (R-SC) Jim DeMint, Sen. (R-IA) Chuck Grassley, Sen. (R-IN) Richard Lugar, Sen. (R-NV) John Ensign, Sen. (R-OK) Tom Coburn, Sen. (D-AR) Mark Pryor, Sen. (D-FL) Bill Nelson, Sen. (R-SD) John Thune, Sen. (R-WY) Mike Enzi, Rep. (R-PA) Joe Pitts, Rep. (R-KS) Todd Tiahrt, Rep. (R-VA) Frank Wolf, Rep. (R-TN) Zach Wamp, Rep.(D-NC) Mike McIntyre, Rep. (D-MI) Bart Stupak, Rep. (D-PA) Michael F. Doyl, Rep.(D-NC) Heath Shuler, Rep. (R-KA) Jerry Moran
Has Lynch ever had a tough election?
Everyone calls Stephen Lynch a South Boston rep, but his district includes Boston's "vote-rich Ward 20", Norwood, Brockton, Braintree, Needham, Dedham, Walpole, and a lot of other places that have little in common with Southie.
Lynch worked his way up as a Southie rep and state senator. He won his Democratic primary ticket to Washington on September 11, 2001, with 40% of the vote when most people's minds were probably on something else. Since then he's been virtually unopposed in every re-election attempt.
He's the most conservative rep in Massachusetts: pro-Iraq war and anti-abortion rights. His biggest issues are war and national security. He voted against TARP and threatened to vote against health care. He could easily be framed as the Joe Lieberman of Massachusetts by a Democratic opponent.
Massachusetts will probably lose a district in 2010. If Mike Capuano doesn't win his longshot challenge for the Senate, he could end up battling Lynch in the ensuing game of musical chairs. After Capuano's visible Senate run, I'd say Lynch is in trouble.
Lynch should stop pretending to represent the people of MA
He is a republican, plain and simple....trying to masquerade as a democrat - since that is the only way he could weasel his way into public office in Massachusetts.
Now that he has been OUTED - he should be voted out, plain and simple.
Roe v Wade makes abortion a LEGAL RIGHT in this country. If you want to overturn that law, that is fine - do it the right way. Dont try to be a sleazeball and slip it into the healthcare debate.
The majority of the people in Massachusetts and the country in general support abortion rights. Time for Lynch to go find a real job, as his time in Washington is up.
It's my understanding that
It's my understanding that the amendment bans private insurance companies that already cover abortion services from providing that coverage if they receive any federal money at all. It had already been established, before this amendment, that no federal money could be used to cover abortion services. What this amendment does is ban private insurance companies, most of which already provide coverage for abortion services, from providing that coverage any more.