If this had stayed in the bill there would not have been enough votes for the Health and Economy Destruction bill to pass.

You have no way of knowing alternative time lines anymore than the rest of us ...

Well of course not. Let me quote you a bit from the the NRLC www site

In a story transmitted today (October 23), the Associated Press accurately reported that the House Democratic leadership currently does not intend to allow the House to vote on an amendment sponsored by Congressmen Bart Stupak (D-Mi.) and Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.), and supported by NRLC, which would, as the AP reported, "include the Hyde amendment restrictions in the health overhaul bill."

The AP reported: "Such an amendment would be almost certain to prevail . . . So Democratic leaders won't let Stupak offer it. Instead, it appears they may have to take the risk of letting Stupak try to block action on the underlying bill, which he intends to do by assembling 'no' votes on a procedural measure [the "rule"] that needs to pass before debate can begin."

To get the leadership to change their minds must have taken some serious effort. My guess is that they needed the votes.

Or how about this one from eight days earlier.

http://www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/Release093009.html

The signers -- 25 Democrats and 158 Republicans -- urged Pelosi to allow a vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to prohibit coverage of elective abortions by the public plan and subsidies for private plans that cover elective abortions. Seven other House Democrats have sent Pelosi similar letters in recent days, for a total of 32 Democrats.

Add those in to hold outs for other reasons and the bill was in trouble. Widely reported trouble. So much trouble that the vote was delayed several times.

Look it is simple. The Republicans got played because they were not willing to take a risk on a NRLC less than 100% score. Or the risk that the bill might have passed with the abortion provision in it.

And if it passes the Senate it is probable that the abortion provision will be air dropped into the final reconciliation.

Or the Senate may not vote on the measure. Ever. If we are lucky.

If the bill had past with the abortion provisions in them, we would be the place where we are now ... hoping it dies in the Senate, hoping people and or states will bring Constitutional challenges, or hoping there is enough tar and feathers in the US to get all the signers, or all of the above.

The bill might have passed with the abortion provisions in it because Pelosi has it loaded with enough pork to get enough people on board. She simply could have kept loading until enough signers overcame their distaste for government funded abortions ...

Well sure Adriane. It might have gone down that way. But the Republican socons didn't even test to see. So we will never know.

And look at the votes. A lot of people not known for their anti-abortion creds voted against government funded abortions.

That does seem to point to the fact that maybe I have a point.

And Adriane,

Have a look at this:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/11/the_narrative_h.html

I dunno. Maybe I have a point.

The House restrictions, offered in an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D., Mich.) and Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), were the price that Speaker Nancy Pelosi - who supports abortion rights - paid to get a health-care bill passed, on a narrow 220-215 vote.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/homepage/20091110_Abortion_threatens_health_bill.html

I hope that makes it clearer.

Swenson negates?coalesce freak:dependably conversant Domingo