Had Nancy whipped the Rules committee to keep the amendment out of the rule, and then had the rule voted down, that would really have made life difficult for her — not just in dealing with health care, but anything else.

A caveat to your helpful and clear explanations, Peterr: There is (very unfortunately for democratic self-government) no independence on the House Rules Committee – they are completely controlled by the Speaker. She doesn’t need to “whip” them – they obey her, if she gives them direction, period. This was made exceedingly clear Friday/Saturday between 1 and 2 a.m., when the obviously-prewritten rule was ruthlessly adhered to by the Democratic members, quashing every contrary suggestion by the Republicans (to let amendments through), without debate. And note, too, that every female member on the Democratic side had left the room before the vote, knowing what was in the Speaker-ordained rule, and thereby carefully avoiding on-the-record accountability for passing her rule or the need to ‘break protocol’ to go on record against it.

Stupak and Kaptur won – but behind closed doors, apparently after they left the closed-door meetings at about 10 or 11 p.m. (KagroX saw Kaptur come into the Rules Committee room about then) and before the Rules Committee voted to adopt “the rule” (a rule that was simply handed to them, already containing the Stupak amendment – it was on blue paper, FWIW) at about 1:15 a.m. [I'm pretty confident that these closed-door meetings with Stupak, evidently involving the President, are where Henry Waxman was spending his time Friday, rather than at the Rules Committee, where he had been expected; Frank Pallone (very capably) filled in for Waxman at the Rules Committee "on two minutes' notice".]

Just think for a moment about what improvements to the base bill might have been possible – or, at a minimum, substantively debated on the House floor – if the Progressive Caucus, instead of impotently letting their meaningless “robust public option” bluff be called even before the conferencing process began, had played the same form of successful brinksmanship against the undemocratic rule, that Stupak & Co. pulled off – behind closed doors all day and into the night Friday, topped off by their public visit at midnight with the Rules Committee.

Granted, some progressive ideas weren’t going to get enough Democratic votes to pass on the floor – without Republican support – but what was the harm in insisting, or letting them try? Medicare plus 5%, Kucinich’s state waiver for single payer that had already passed committee, a biologic ‘perfecting’ amendment re evergreening, etc., etc. could have seen the light of day. The only “harm” was that such votes might have exposed members (and corporate-beholden leaders) of the “Democratic Party” as the frauds they are, and so any risk of that had to be avoided at all (good government) cost.

And then consider how the debate might have been improved and informed if all worthy amendments had been considered, including, for example Oregon Republican Walden’s simple suggestions to ensure enough rural representation on the key new Executive Branch bodies that will be implementing this legislation (ideas that had passed unanimously in committee only to be stripped later by Democratic leadership). [You should see the geographic reach of Walden's eastern Oregon district.] There happened to be a telling moment of foreshadow during Walden’s persistent and passionate testimony for his amendments, when Rules Committee member Dennis Cardoza (Democratic Blue Dog) spoke up in favor of them (as did Republican Foxx later). Cardoza wanted Walden to know that he’d ‘put in a word for’ Walden’s amendments with… yes, this is who the Party controlling Congress has ceded legislative power to, and is letting call the shots as this process winds down… the president. [Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.] Walden was purportedly at the Rules Committee, at 10 or 11 p.m. at night, to ask the Rules Committee, of which Cardoza is a member, to allow his amendments through to the House floor. And yet a member of that committee dropped the pretense of independence just long enough to alert Walden that the real (if backroom, and publicly ‘hands off’) authority was being given private encouragement by Cardoza to grace Walden by including his language in the final bill, even while bipartisan support on the Speaker-controlled Slaughter Rules Committee itself was insufficient to get Walden’s (or any other non-Stupak) amendments to the House floor…

What Marcy Kaptur needs to do now, if she has the principles she claims to have, is to practice her new-found “bringing down the rule” skills on banking and campaign finance reform, two of her avowed passions. No reason to limit to abortion legislation this practice of insisting that your voice be heard and democratic process be honored, in the face of Party leadership opposition, is there, Ms. Kaptur? You’ll have Ron Paul of the Republicans, at least, with you on the banking reform. So don’t hide your light under a bushel, Rep. Kaptur – time and money’s awasting.

They are lying hypocrits of the lowest and most venal kind. They use their ersatz religion in much the same way that the Roman Catholic church does: to enrich themselves – mainly the white male power elite – while forcing the serfs to live by a different set of much more onerous “rules.”

It’s all an old boys club social network, where they back each other up, including, yes, collecting for each other’s mistresses’ pay-offs and so forth. Yes, I know that there are some women involved, but the vast majority are men. Their goal is to dominate and hold back anyone who is not part of their group, which mainly includes the less weathy, the poor, women, gays, minorities, and so on. In other words: rich white men holding down the rest of us for their enrichment and empowerment.

Same old, same old.

I, too, wish there was a better, third party bc Democratic pols are hand in glove with the C Street crowd. Ugh. Very depressing.

Cult is cult.

wonder what those C-Streeters would say if we demanded an amendment blocking Federal funds for Viagra and ED meds.

such a low blow is, well, entirely appropriate. Of the 64 turncoat dems who voted for the Stupak Amendment, how many of them were men? I believe the correct answer is 62.

In general terms, would it be correct to say that the legislation we got last night – H R 3962 with the Stupak Amendment – creates a public health insurance option that will be available to some, but only few years from now, and that it creates a new health insurance exchange to force greater competition among private plans so as to bring costs down, but that none of these will be available to women unless they voluntarily give up their constitutional right in a matter of conscience?