Can you explain it for me? I need a “Recommit for Dummies”.
“Can you explain it for me? I need a “Recommit for Dummies”.
Democrats worried about Republicans’ motion to recommit on Stupak language” ~ Lets Be Frank
Try this thread:
The Hill ^ | 3/21/10
Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:19:15 PM by JimWayne
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2476373/posts
Democrats are worried about holding their members together on a GOP motion that could kill the healthcare bill.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said House leaders are specifically concerned about a Republican motion to recommit that would contain only language on abortion that Stupak originally had wanted to include in the Senate bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
To: padre35; LS; dr_who
Also, from the news report, “During his press conference, Stupak said that he would be inclined to support a motion to recommit containing only his abortion amendment.”
9 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:22:41 PM by JimWayne
To: JimWayne
Explain to me what exactly this does. I’m lost in this procedure.
11 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:24:16 PM by LS
To: LS
The Minority Party will have one last chance to make amendments to the bill and can introduce it just before the vote. There will be a 10 minute debate on this and then the House votes to either send it back to the Committee or not. These votes are RECORDED.
Since they are recorded, most Dims who do not want to be associated with killing babies will vote for the amendment (so goes the thinking) and when it gets sent back to the Committee and they add the amended language and return the bill (all within minutes), the bill is now a totally different one from the Senate bill meaning that the Senate will have to vote on it again.
The suggestion here is that the Republicans should offer the Stupak language as the Motion to Recommit and either change the bill or force a recorded vote of their opposition to the amendment.
18 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:26:14 PM by JimWayne
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2476373/posts?page=18#18
To: LS
It won’t derail anything, it just splits the Dems on record.
22 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:27:09 PM by HarryCaul
Here’s my question. Since the vote is on the Senate bill and the abortion promise was made for reconciliation, isn’t it possible once the house approves the measure, that the Senate could deny it, and thus, allow FOR gov’t funded abortions?
Does anyone honestly believe democrats will not allow funded abortions?!?!?!
19 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:26:30 PM by rintense
To: rintense
You are absolutely right. That is why a Motion to Recommit is important. IF successful, it becomes a bill with a different text and the Senate will have to vote on it again. If it does not succeed, it at least records the votes of the House members who opposed the amendment in the Motion to Recommit.
27 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:28:27 PM by JimWayne
To: JimWayne
I don’t understand this much but I heard yesterday dKOS was very worried about this ‘motion to recommit’ and Hillbuzz was saying that it could be a very powerful weapon against the Dems.
32 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:33:03 PM by plushaye
To: JimWayne; Miss Didi
Ping for JimWayne’s explanation!
The Minority Party will have one last chance to make amendments to the bill and can introduce it just before the vote. There will be a 10 minute debate on this and then the House votes to either send it back to the Committee or not. These votes are RECORDED.
Since they are recorded, most Dims who do not want to be associated with killing babies will vote for the amendment (so goes the thinking) and when it gets sent back to the Committee and they add the amended language and return the bill (all within minutes), the bill is now a totally different one from the Senate bill meaning that the Senate will have to vote on it again.
The suggestion here is that the Republicans should offer the Stupak language as the Motion to Recommit and either change the bill or force a recorded vote of their opposition to the amendment.
34 posted on Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:34:00 PM by retrokitten