And while I'm at it, we also seem to weigh the post-conference vote differently. You seem to be claiming that it's important that after a hc+stupak bill came out of conference committee the House could still have voted that down. I agree that's technically true, but I think it's incredibly unlikely.
If Nelson's amendment had passed in the Senate then the conference committee would have had two bills with abortion restrictions and would almost certainly have produced a final bill that contained the language. If you're claiming that when faced with that FINAL language the pro-choice Dems would then have changed their minds and voted against it I think you're being overly optimistic. I think they would've voted for it.
The only way I can see to keep anti-abortion language out of the final conf committee bill is to keep it out of either the House or the Senate version. By voting for it in the House, the Dems were counting on the Senate to keep such language out. That's a gamble.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
Re: I like Capuano but
Date: 2009-12-10 15:10 (UTC)If Nelson's amendment had passed in the Senate then the conference committee would have had two bills with abortion restrictions and would almost certainly have produced a final bill that contained the language. If you're claiming that when faced with that FINAL language the pro-choice Dems would then have changed their minds and voted against it I think you're being overly optimistic. I think they would've voted for it.
The only way I can see to keep anti-abortion language out of the final conf committee bill is to keep it out of either the House or the Senate version. By voting for it in the House, the Dems were counting on the Senate to keep such language out. That's a gamble.