| I'm doing this as a series, because it has become quite apparent that when the Sinning Senator David Vitter is confronted with something or someone that can derail his political ambitions, he and his political allies lie like dogs.
The entire series, (as I anticipate there will quite a few of these forthcoming as the campaign heats up) can be found by clicking on the "doing a vitter" tag.
The Sinning Senator is now attacking Congressman Charlie Melancon for allowing a re-vote of a Republican amendment that would have prohibited federal funding for abortions as part of health care reform, (courtesy of John Maginnis' LaPolitics Weekly, subscription required):
In the Energy & Commerce Committee last week, Melancon voted for a Republican-sponsored amendment to exclude coverage for abortions in any government-run insurance plan. The measure passed on a close vote, but a fellow Democrat said he mistakenly voted yes and asked for a revote. Melancon voted to allow the second vote, then voted for the amendment again, which failed.
Melancon said his was a procedural vote to allow a member to vote as he intended. Vitter didn't see it that way. His campaign sent out a mass e-mail slamming Melancon for giving Democratic leaders the second chance they needed to include coverage for abortion in the bill.
Apparently, the Sinning Senator hasn't quite grasped the ideas of courtesy and respect. Rep. Gordon of Tennessee, who has a decidedly mixed record on abortion votes, asked for a re-vote because he admitted to mistakenly voting YEA on the amendment (pdf alert).
Congressional rules allow only those who vote on the winning side of a vote to move for a motion to re-consider, which the Chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman of California was able to do because he switched his vote from NAY to YEA in the final moments of voting on the amendment.
Thus, a motion to reconsider was held, and it was a party-line vote, with the exception of the Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, who offered his own no funding for abortions amendment. That means the reconsideration procedural vote was 35-24 (pdf alert). Thus, with 5 votes to spare, Rep. Melancon's vote would not have mattered at all.
The question now becomes why Charlie voted YEA on the procedural vote ... here's the explanation from Melancon's press spokeswoman, Robin Winchell:
Charlie strongly believes in preserving the right of Members to vote their conscience and should not be "tricked" into voting for an amendment they do not support. Therefore, out of a sense of fairness and respect for the Member, he voted for the procedural motion to allow a "re-vote" on the Pitts amendment.
On top of that, Charlie voted for the pro-life position on amendments before the committee THREE times:
TWICE on the Pitts amendment, thanks to the re-consideration vote, and he voted AGAINST the Capps amendment (pef alert, which allows for federal funding for abortions.
In addition, Charlie supported Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment, which was withdrawn before it came to a vote. (for more info, see the letter below the jump!)
That seems like the end of this ... but wait, there is more. Congressman Melancon voted against the Energy and Commerce Committee's final version of the health care bill because, as he stated in a statement explaining his vote:
"As someone who is personally pro-life and represents a deeply pro-life constituency, I am also concerned that this bill does not do enough to ensure taxpayer dollars do not fund abortion."
Finally, this legislative process is far from over. There will be more opportunities for Congressman Melancon to stick a prohibition on federal funds being used to pay for abortions into the bill. Indeed, according to his spokeswoman:
However, this issue is far from settled and there will be many more opportunities for Charlie to work to insert language in the health care bill banning publicly-funded abortions. Congressman Melancon is committed to seeking out every opportunity to amend this bill so that it does not lead to more abortions and, instead, promotes a culture of life.
The Sinning Senator and his GOP cronies ... constantly lying like dogs when they face an obstacle to their political ambitions. |
