Rep. Wasserman Schultz: Confident Stupak will not be in the final version of the bill

Check out Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) on MSNBC today.
Transcript of Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s comments after the jump.

“Well that language, she’s right, is very, very troubling. It was extremely painful for me to have to vote for a bill – to feel compelled to vote for a bill – that had that type of restriction on a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices. I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee, that that language won’t be there and I think that we’re all going to be working very hard – particularly the pro-choice members – to make sure that that’s the case.”

Join the Conversation

  • zes

    Hear hear Congresswoman.
    I don’t blame her for voting it through as was. As they say, politics is the art of the possible. I think this amendment was mainly attached to try and sink the whole bill, and it was very clever of those who believe providing universal healthcare is a moral prerogative not to fall for it.
    As a citizen of a country where I pay lower taxes than my American friends and still get universal healthcare that has saved the lives of multiple friends and family while leaving not a single one of them bankrupt or without ongoing cover, I wish the administration the very best of luck in getting the whole bill through.

  • iheartchai

    that stupak amendment is making a shitty bill even worse.

  • JupiterAmmon

    I sure as hell don’t. there is corporatism written into the bill. It’ll pretty much be taxpayer dollars subsidizing a horribly corrupt drug industry. Our Dems are bought out just like our Republicans, and its clear that even if the lives of the women, people of color, and GLBTQ folk who voted them in are at stake, they’ll still side with whoever funds their campaign best.
    We need a new party to create a new governance system. Maybe we should call it the Women’s, GLBTQ, and Workers party?

  • conductress

    “I think this amendment was mainly attached to try and sink the whole bill.”
    It’s interesting that you bring this up. It reminds me that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was amended to include women, because conservatives thought the inclusion of women would sink the bill. So, while that amendment worked out well for women, the Stupak amendment is just another example of women’s rights being wielded as a political tool with little to no concern for the actual lives of women.

  • Comrade Kevin

    Here’s hoping, though one must admit that until it is fully implemented, we won’t have a clue how the reform legislation really works. I’m not being a naysayer, but rather I know that there will be problems that will need subsequent reforms to remedy.

  • Gretchen

    I just read an article that said that 41 House Dems wrote a letter to Nancy Pelosi, saying that they would vote against the bill if the Stupak amendment were included. While I am thrilled that these representatives took a stand for the rights of women, this also could mean the death knell for health care (and, indirectly, Democrats’ chances in the midterm elections) – there won’t be enough votes to pass it, with or without the amendment.
    …So thanks a whole fucking lot, Stupak, for possibly killing our best shot at finally getting long-overdue health care legislation through Congress.