Who Voted to Take Away Your Basic Rights Tonight? The 64 Dems Who Voted “Yes” on Stupak

Wanna know which Dems voted to give away your rights by passing the Stupak amendment in the health reform bill?

Here’s a list of the 64 who voted yes.


Bishop (GA)
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Donnelly (IN)
Gordon (TN)
Neal (MA)
Ryan (OH)
Wilson (OH)

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

For more information or to schedule an interview with contact press@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Jodi Jacobson on twitter: @jljacobson

  • progo35

    YAY! I’m moving to one of those states just so I can vote for one of those congress people!!!! :p

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • sayna

    How incredibly mature and sensitive of you to cheer over someone’s healthcare coverage being taken away.

  • progo35

    How incredibly mature and sensitive of you to present federal abortion coverage as the be all and end all of health care coverage, even though health care coverage entails all aspects of medical care,thus, not allowing federal funding of abortion does not result in “someone’s healthcare coverage being taken away.” Stop being so dishonest.

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • sayna

    The fact of the matter is that you are cheering because the House voted to not allow women to obtain abortion coverage. You have no idea how this will effect women. You have no idea how this could financially and emotionally hurt someone. You are cheering over something that could have devastating effects on women. I know you’re opposed to abortion rights but have a little courtesy and dignity when you win something.

  • progo35

    Women can obtain abortion coverage if they do not receive federal subsidies to pay for it.

    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • ema

    Quick, for female patients of reproductive age, what percentage of their health care (both routine and hospitalizations) is devoted to reproductive medical care?

  • jayn

    Which, like everything else in the American health care system, protects the rich and damns the poor.

  • julie-watkins

    How typical
  • johndkerr

    This tired and trite old phrase is just lesbian code, frequently seen on bumper stickers on Subaru Outbacks. I get the point, but rather than being ‘not well behaved’ to make history, how about words like ‘smart’, ‘intelligent’, ‘thoughtful’, ‘progressive’, and ‘caring’? Those kind of women make history too.

  • emma

    Class warfare? Interesting.

    I’m so sorry to all on RH who could be affected by this shit.

  • harry834

    Can you elaborate John? I’m unfamiliar with the "code" you speak of.

  • megan-evans

    Actually Progo, that’s not true with the passing of the Stupak bill. The Hyde Amendment prevents federal funds for paying for abortion-true.  But the Stupak Amendment goes one step further by banning private insurance companies from covering abortion…actually removing coverage so many women have through their private insurance.  


    "This amendment would exclude abortion from any benefits package, denying this service to millions gaining coverage, and force millions more to lose the abortion coverage they currently have."


    If people think this will decrease the rates of abortion, they are dead wrong.  It will increase late term abortions, cause serious financial challenges to women and families, and potentially increase dangerous "back-alley" abortions.   

  • colleen

     You have no idea how this will effect women. You have no idea how this could financially and emotionally hurt someone.

     The worst part is that she does understand, at least as far as someone with her  limited ability to empathize is able. She’s just excited because for religious conservatives the thrilling part is delivering the self righteous retribution and condemnation. This will open up so many opportunities for her favorite hobby.

    Dignity? Progo? please.




    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • princess-rot

    Did you miss the part of Stupak-Pitt Amendment which seeks to ban most private healthcare companies from providing abortion coverage? Not that many of them do anyway? Again, damning the poor and diadvantaged to protect the snobby moralistic sensibilities of a few politicians who more than likely won’t be affected by it, because they are privileged enough not to be concerned that they have rejected a core tenent of the Democratic party, which is civil liberty for all?

    Just like when it was illegal and rich women could go abroad while the poor suffered in silence. And I’m not just talking about people who live on welfare in desperately poor areas, it affects those who have lost their jobs, those who are unemployed, college students who cannot afford private healthcare, those with bad credit ratings, bankruptcies (another criteria for rejection of insurance) those who live in areas where the nearest contraception-dispensing, non "pro-life" pharmacy is miles away, those who have been rejected before for private insurance whatever reason… the list is endless.

  • colleen

    Quite so, Princess Rot and health care ‘reform’ affects us not just by denying women coverage for abortion but by mandating the purchase of insurance that does not cover basic reproductive health care needs. And,. as I understand it, the mandate carries hefty financial and/or criminal penalties for those who refuse or are unable to comply.

    I’m tempted to write in detailed, graphic terms which orifice Congress can place their ‘reform’ but am exercising restraint.



    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • teedub

    I’m lucky in that I’m healthy for the most part.


    The only reason I’ve gone to the doctor’s office recently is for reproductive health care.

  • sexstudent

    Why is it that the government can’t tell insurance companies they can no longer perform any other LEGAL medical procedure? What if heart surgery became out-of-pocket? Or any other LEGAL medical procedure. Morals have no place in medical care. If you don’t believe in the procedure then don’t have it, but it is not your right to tell someone they can’t have it. Even though I despise cosmetic surgery, it should remain legal. I wish all the old men of government would just step down and let the women do what needs to be done.

    "In America, each person is entitled to their own opinion, but each person is NOT entitled to their own facts" Marty Klein


  • progo35

    I know that my initial reaction was somewhat harsh, but I honestly disagree with your interpretation of what the bill says. I don’t think that the bill barrs private insurance companies from coverng abortion in general. The only time that private companies will be banned from covering it is when they are serving clients that are recieving stipends from the government to cover premium costs. Private companies can still offer abortion coverage, it’s just that under this ammendment, they must also offer plans that do not include abortion coverage. So, it’s just not true that the bill barrs private insurance companies from covering abortion or that women who are currently signed up with a private insurance companies will lose abortion coverage. As long as they can pay for the premiums themselves, as they have always done, their insurance companies can still cover abortion procedures.  


    "Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

  • jodi-jacobson

    You are incorrect.

    You may misunderstand the implications for the private market as we move toward a public option and insurance exchanges, and you are incorrect.

    Every single expert analyzing this has determined exactly the same thing as we have reported here.

    If it were not the case that it did not affect the private market, the Stupak amemdment would not have had any effect at all because the base bill already had language forbidding federal funding.
    You may not want to accept the agenda that has been promoted or publicly acknowledge it, but you are incorrect.