Passing a reform bill is close, but it's becoming increasingly clear that it may not be what people hoped for. Outside of ending the insurance industry's discriminatory practices, all kinds of compromises are being made that may not be in the best interest of the people who need this plan. In fact, Nancy Pelosi continues to back away from the public option:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has strongly supported the proposal to create a government-run health insurance option, but she left the door open on Thursday to accepting a health reform compromise from the Senate that does not include a public option.

"We in the House believe that the public option is the best way to hold insurance companies honest — to keep them honest and also to increase competition," Pelosi said at a press conference today, reports CBS News Capitol Hill Producer Evelyn Thomas. "If there is a better way, put it on the table. As soon as we see something in writing from the Senate, we will be able to make a judgment about that."

Senate Democrats are currently considering a set of proposals — including expanding Medicare and creating national, private plans for consumers — in lieu of a public option. Some of the public option's strongest advocates, like former Democratic leader Howard Dean, have said they like the Senate plan. Liberal grassroots groups, however, are adamantly opposed to it.

Pelosi has shifted to promoting the Medicare buy-in:

The speaker stopped short of embracing the broader contours of a fragile compromise worked out by liberal and moderate Senate negotiators in an effort to nudge forward broad changes to the health-care system. Still, she said: "There's certainly a great deal of appeal" to expanding Medicare.

Such an expansion is an old idea among Democrats, but one that was largely absent from this year's congressional health-care debate before it made a Phoenix-like appearance in recent days. The "buy-in," as the idea is known, is intended to help 6.5 million Americans who lack health insurance or purchase expensive policies on their own. They are in an age group in which medical problems become more common and coverage is particularly expensive.

But how many of those people could afford to sign up — and how many would prefer the option over other avenues to insurance that lawmakers are contemplating — hinge on critical details that even the senators embracing the idea have not resolved. The team of senators that proposed the Medicare expansion is declining to disclose the proposal's fine print until congressional budget analysts examine the impact for patients and the federal budget.

Live Pulse has the scoop on some of the initial number crunching - but the prognosis is grim:

PREMIUMS COULD BE HIGH, reports NYT's David Herszenhorn and Robert Pear: "Senate Democrats have provided few details about their latest health care proposal, but this much seems clear: Anyone who wants to buy the same health benefits as members of Congress, or to buy coverage through Medicare, should be prepared to fork over a large chunk of cash. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a family of four earning $54,000 in 2016, when the health legislation is fully in effect, would be eligible for a subsidy of $10,100 to help defray the cost of insurance under the health legislation being debated by the Senate. By then, one of the most popular federal plans, a nationwide Blue Cross and Blue Shield policy, is projected to cost more than $20,000. That could leave the family earning $54,000, slightly more than the current median household income, with monthly premium costs of more than $825. The Democrats' proposal would also allow some people ages 55 to 64 to ‘buy in' to Medicare, starting in 2011. That could cost about $7,600 a year per person or $15,200 for a couple, according to a budget office analysis of an earlier version of the concept. No subsidies would be available until 2014. … Preliminary back-of-the-envelope calculations reflect the steep challenges that Senate Democrats face as they await a new cost analysis of their plan. The numbers also reflect potential pitfalls in the politically appealing message to constituents that they might get benefits similar to those of federal lawmakers."

But the self-proclaimed "defenders of freedom" aren't having it. Adamantly opposed to the push for heath care reform, and insisting this is still a government takeover, they plan to take it to the steps of the Capitol:

A group called the Tea Party Patriots, which is affiliated with the Dick Armey-backed lobbying group FreedomWorks, is calling on supporters to "storm Senate offices" on December 15th in order to "to flex our muscle and exert that influence to hold the line in our fight against the government takeover of healthcare."

"The intention is to go inside the Senate offices and hallways, and play out the role of patients waiting for treatment in government controlled medical facilities," according to a message on the group's Web site. "As the day goes on some of us will pretend to die from our untreated illnesses and collapse on the floor. Many of us plan to stay there until they force us to leave."

They may need to pack some tents extend the camp out. According to recent news coming down the pipeline, the national debt ceiling may have to rise, causing high blood pressure in many a fiscal conservative:

With the national debt projected to soar by nearly $1.4 trillion this year, congressional Democrats are planning a year-end push to dramatically increase the legal debt limit so they don't have to revisit the politically uncomfortable issue before facing voters in November.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she will include legislation to raise the debt ceiling in a must-pass defense spending bill headed to the House floor next week. [...]

Treasury officials have told congressional leaders that they must raise the cap before Dec. 31 or risk running out of money for Social Security checks and veterans' payments due in early January, Democrats said. By law, the Treasury can borrow no more than Congress legally permits.

In light of our current woes, is health care reform going to end up being worth what we are spending?

Pelosi open to recess work on healthcare [UPI]
Pelosi Does Not Rule Out Senate Health Plan [CBS News]
Pelosi backs Medicare buy-in plan in Senate health-care deal [Washington Post]
Live Pulse [Politico]
Tea Party Protesters Plan to "Storm Senate" [CBS News]
Democrats to seek higher limit on the federal debt [Washington Post]

Things to watch out for during the Saturday vote which will determine if the health care debate moves forward:

Major Differences

The Politico summarizes:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced his health care reform bill yesterday and moved the debate into its final stage. After a year of multiple plans, proposals and programs we're down to two final, and very different, versions of reform. The House bill costs just over $1 trillion. The Senate bill weighs in at $848 billion. The Senate cuts Medicare spending by $491 billion and the House slashes it $571 billion. The Senate's public insurance option allows states to opt out of the program while the House has a more robust plan. And to fund reform, the Senate relies primarily on taxing high-end health plans while the House taxes the rich. And the gulf between the two bills is not likely to shrink as the bill moves through the Senate. If anything, the gap may widen if Senate moderates force Reid to make the bill more conservative. Besides the daily speculation about whether Reid has 60 votes to move a bill forward, which has been going on for weeks, the next power play to watch will be how Reid, Pelosi and the White House begin to move toward a bill that can pass both chambers and land with a victorious thud on the president's desk. Getting a bill passed through the Senate is difficult, but many insiders think reconciling the differences between the two bills could be hellacious.

Abortion

Now that Pelosi has reversed her stance on Stupak-Pitts, saying the amendment goes too far and embracing Reid's version, Catholic leaders and the GOP have come out swinging.

Catholic bishops are displeased:

A top Obama administration official on Thursday praised the new Senate health care bill's attempt to find a compromise on abortion coverage - even as an official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said Sen. Harry Reid's bill is the worst he's seen so far on the divisive issue.

The bishops were instrumental in getting tough anti-abortion language adopted by the House, forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to accept restrictions that outraged liberals as the price for passing the Democratic health care bill. [...]

Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops' conference Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said Reid's "is actually the worst bill we've seen so far on the life issues."

He called it "completely unacceptable," adding that "to say this reflects current law is ridiculous."

Meanwhile, the Republicans found a new talking point:

House Minority Leader John Boehner's office has posted a long statement blasting the Senate health care plan, specifically targeting the abortion provisions with an accusation it levies an "abortion premium fee."

A Senate Democratic aide came back with the facts, pointing out that the prevision that Boehner refers to is for something else, and points to all the language in the bill that prohibits the use of public funds for abortion.

But Melissa over at Shakesville points out that Reid's additions are more of a Pyrrhic victory than anything else.

When Boxer's petition against the Stupak Amendment noted it "discriminates against women by taking away health coverage they already have-and tells women who participate in the new health insurance exchange that they can't even use their own funds to buy a policy that includes abortion coverage," I didn't imagine "let them use their own funds!" was going to be regarded as the best solution.

Silly me.

Meanwhile, D-Day notes that this compromise depends heavily on decisions made by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, as s/he "determines whether or not abortion services are being paid for with federal dollars" and "can choose whether or not abortion services are covered in the public option."

Not only are those wildly enormous decisions to leave in the hands of one person, but, as D-Day points out, "the executive branch may indeed be controlled by a Republican at some point in the future."

Cost

One of the major differences in the two plans is how it will be funded. The House wants to tax millionaires - the Senate bill wants to tax "Cadillac plans." However, taxing these so called plans may not be a good strategy. Politifact delves into the details of the Senate plan:

Under the Senate Finance proposal from Sen. Max Baucus, insurance companies would have to pay a 40 percent excise tax on health insurance policies that exceed $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families; they would pay taxes on the amount that exceeds those thresholds. We spoke with three economists on both the left and the right, and they all agreed that insurance companies will not simply absorb the new tax; they will pass it along in the form of even higher premiums. Employers will then try to avoid the new higher costs by buying cheaper health plans.

Finally, the economists agreed that if employers have to scale back on health plans, they will eventually pay higher wages as they seek to retain workers. At this point, disgruntled workers may say "Yeah, right," but the economists were adamant that it is the case. There are data that we won't get into now that back up their point.

Here's where the analysis that Palin mentioned by the Joint Committee, which is nonpartisan and advises Congress on tax policy, comes in: At the Senate's request, it tried to figure out the effect of the excise tax on federal taxes collected. Like the economists we talked to, the Joint Committee also believes that wages will rise if employers select lower-priced health insurance, and the government gets to tax those higher wages. So the Joint Committee created a series of tables projecting how much additional income tax would be collected over the next 10 years. By 2019, about 87 percent of those people paying higher taxes would make less than $200,000, according to an analysis of the preliminary Senate Finance proposal.

So here's what that means: If workers end up getting paid more, they'll also be taxed more.

Communications Workers of America also ran a separate analysis on what the 'Cadillac' plan tax would mean for workers:

"The Senate Finance Committee excise tax is not a tax on 'Cadillac' plans; it's a pick-up truck tax. It taxes plans that are of great utility to millions of working Americans, but it is bad policy based on wrong assumptions," said CWA President Larry Cohen. "Health care reform should be paid for by making employers who don't pay, pay. The House bill does it with an 8 percent payroll tax on employers who don't provide coverage."

CWA recommends the following strategies to avoid penalizing people who fought for better coverage, but are being lumped in with CEO packages:

Rather than impose a new tax on the middle class, CWA supports other revenue sources:

* Require most employers to provide coverage or pay an 8 percent penalty if they do not, as proposed under H.R. 3200 in the House of Representatives. This would raise $163 billion over ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The Senate Finance Committee bill has no employer mandate.
* Levy a modest surtax on the wealthiest Americans – 1.2 percent of U.S. taxpayers – as proposed in H.R. 3200, raising $544 billion over ten years according to JCT.
* Limit the charitable deductions for individuals earning more than $250,000 and families earning more than $500,000, as proposed by President Obama, which would raise $318 billion over ten years.
* Enact a strong public health insurance plan option to compete with private insurers, as proposed under H.R. 3200, which would lower costs by about $110 billion. The Senate Finance Committee bill has no public option.

Of course, the real party starts Saturday night. Seeing that the last Saturday evening health care announcement brought us Stupak-Pitts, let's hope nothing new comes out of left field.

Live Pulse [Politico]
Pelosi Says Stupak 'Goes Beyond Status Quo', 'Optimistic' It Won't Stop Reform [TPM]
White House at odds with bishops over abortion [AP]
GOP Claims Senate Bill Forces Taxpayers To Pay 'Abortion Fee' [TPM]
Senate Health Bill Answer to Stupak [Shakesville]
Sarah Palin says health care reform will raise taxes on the middle class [Politifact]
CWA Excise Tax Study Finds that One-Third of Health Care Plans Still Will Be Affected By Senate Finance Committee Approach [CWA]

Related: Why the Health Insurance Excise Tax Is a Bad Idea [The Nation]

Time magazine summarizes this dynamic beautifully: "In the end, all of the tea-party town halls, Glenn Beck rallies and "death panel" rumors may have less of a hand in bringing down health-care reform than an intraparty Democratic culture war."

The battle over abortion rights is more than a cultural conflict. While politicians choose to position the impact of the amendment differently, it still amounts to a frighteningly blatant assault on women's autonomy. The Time piece sheds some light onto the political wheeling and dealing that led to Stupak:

In mid-June, Stupak and 18 other pro-life Democrats sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi warning that they could not vote for the bill that had been introduced unless it was changed to prevent taxpayer funding of abortion. (The original health-reform bill introduced in the House contained no reference to abortion, which both pro-life and pro-choice activists read as allowing coverage of abortion through the so-called public option, a government-run alternative to private insurance plans that some individuals and small businesses would have access to.) They received no response.

A month later, five other pro-life Democrats led by Tim Ryan of Ohio sent another letter to Pelosi expressing their concerns as well, but suggesting a compromise to the abortion quandary. This time, Pelosi was interested and she gave Ryan the green light to develop language that ended up known as the Capps amendment, because Lois Capps of California introduced it during the House Energy and Commerce Committee's markup of health-reform legislation.

The provision extended the decades-old Hyde Amendment prohibitions against funding of abortions through Medicaid and federal employee health plans except in the case of rape, incest, or to save the woman's life to the medical care covered under the public option. In addition, Capps put forward a system in which an insurance plan could segregate private funds to pay for abortions from public subsidies, which could not.

At the time, Stupak's opposition to the Capps amendment - he was suspicious of it because it had been drafted without his group's input, by a pro-choice Democrat no less - seemed unimportant. Democratic leaders thought their solution would allow them to cobble together enough pro-life votes, and they were convinced that the amendment had taken abortion off the table.

Indeed, up until the last week before the House vote on health reform, both Pelosi and Stupak thought they each had the votes to get their way on abortion. As a result, when Indiana Congressman Brad Ellsworth, a pro-life Democrat, tried to draft an amendment tightening the Capps language in the last weeks before the House vote, both sides attacked him. Planned Parenthood said the effort, which attempted to strengthen the segregation of funds and ensure that no federal dollars could ever be designated to fund abortions in the exchange, could "tip the balance away from women's access to reproductive health care." And the Catholic bishops conference issued a memo calling the amendment "not a meaningful compromise."

The one-two punch took the life out of the Ellsworth amendment and denied pro-life Democrats the opportunity to vote for something less extreme than the final Stupak amendment. According to several members who voted for the Stupak amendment, they would have supported a more moderate compromise along the lines of the Ellsworth language if they had been given the chance. As it was, 10 of the 19 Democrats who signed the initial Stupak letter to Pelosi voted against health reform even after their demands on abortion were met.

While I am shaking my fist at my computer screen, Politico lobs this bomb:

Taxpayers currently provide deep subsidies for health insurance plans that cover abortion - a little-recognized fact responsible for much of the angst over an anti-abortion amendment attached to the House health care bill.

Stupak and his allies, including every House Republican, a quarter of the chamber's Democrats and the Vatican, say that it simply extends an existing prohibition on federal funding for abortion - an annually renewed policy called the Hyde amendment - to the health care exchange that would be established for the uninsured under the health care bill making its way through Congress.

But lawmakers who support abortion rights contend that, if the Stupak amendment's logic is extended to the $250 billion in tax breaks Americans get to buy coverage through employer-based plans, it could strip abortion coverage from tens of millions of women who already have it.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, said that the next step beyond Stupak for the anti-abortion movement will be to make sure that "if that federal wand has been waved over your insurance, then you don't get to get abortion coverage.

All of this calls Obama's motives into question - how does one "maintain the status quo" when we are obviously upending the status quo in favor of this craptacular amendment? Still, there are some who believe that this type of trade would have little impact on the day to day lives of women in America.

The New Republic calculates how many women would be heavily impacted by the amendment:

How many women would the Stupak amendment affect? It wouldn't immediately impinge on the roughly 60 million women ages 18-64 who presently get health insurance through their jobs or their spouses' jobs rather than Medicare. At least in the short term, nothing would change for these women because they wouldn't receive any federal funds. But most of them aren't reimbursed for abortion coverage under the current system. There's a debate about how many private health care plans cover abortion—estimates have ranged from 46 percent to nearly 87 percent. But, regardless of the number, the Guttmacher Institute found that only 13 percent of all abortions in 2001 were directly billed to private insurance companies. Some women may have filed for reimbursement on their own; others may have been reluctant to file claims because they didn't want their employers or spouses to know they had abortions; and other women were uninsured. Nevertheless, 74 percent of women who had abortions paid for them out of pocket.

That doesn't mean the Stupak amendment would maintain the status quo on abortion funding. It would restrict the choices of women who buy private health insurance on the new health-insurance exchange designed to provide affordable coverage. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, under the House bill, 21 million Americans will buy insurance through the exchange by 2019. This group will include some of the 17 million women, ages 18-64, who are currently uninsured (and, obviously, don't receive any abortion coverage) and some of the 5.7 million women currently purchasing coverage through the market rather than through employers—including self-employed and unemployed women, and those whose jobs don't offer benefits.

It's some subset of this last group—the women who switch from private plans that now cover abortion to private plans on the federal exchange—who would be most affected by the changes. The overwhelming majority of people who buy private insurance on the exchange will be receiving federal affordability credits, and the Stupak amendment says that, if you receive a federal subsidy, you can't buy insurance that covers abortion. (The amendment allows women who are farsighted enough to plan for unplanned pregnancies to buy a single-service abortion-insurance "rider," but, in practice, past experience suggests these riders won't be readily available.) "The bottom line seems to be that abortion coverage, if it exists at all on the exchange, will be rare," says Adam Sonfield of the Guttmacher Institute. This may not be a great financial burden for the majority of women who have first-trimester abortions, which are relatively cheap—in 2006, the average cost of a first-trimester abortion was $413—but it could represent a more serious burden for women who have later-term abortions, which are more expensive.

(While much has been made of the 13% statistic, it is important to note that the Guttmacher institute disagrees with any framing of the statistic that would result in reducing the availability of abortion services and coverage. In a press release, they said: "Guttmacher's 13% statistic, therefore, should not be cited as evidence that insurance coverage for abortion is not widespread or to suggest that restricting such coverage would have an impact on only a small minority of women." While the TNR piece above states some of the Guttmacher caveats, the statistic is still what gets the most play.)

The most sensible take on the whole debate comes from this week's New Yorker, where Jeffrey Toobin puts our current bout of conservative hysterics into historical context:

Abortion is almost as old as childbirth. There has always been a need for some women to end their pregnancies. In modern times, the law's attitude toward that need has varied. In the United States, at the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before "quickening" were both legal and commonplace, often performed by midwives. In the nineteenth century, under the influence of the ascendant medical profession, which opposed abortion (and wanted to control health care), states began to outlaw the procedure, and by the turn of the twentieth century it was all but uniformly illegal. The rise of the feminist movement led to widespread efforts to decriminalize abortion, and in 1973 the Supreme Court found, in Roe v. Wade, that the Constitution prohibited the states from outlawing it.

Throughout this long legal history, the one constant has been that women have continued to have abortions. The rate has declined slightly in recent years, but, according to the Guttmacher Institute, thirty-five per cent of all women of reproductive age in America today will have had an abortion by the time they are forty-five. It might be assumed that such a common procedure would be included in a nation's plan to protect the health of its citizens. In fact, the story of abortion during the past decade has been its separation from other medical services available to women. Abortion, as the academics like to say, is being marginalized.

It is being marginalized, and the sad part is that the effort is working - instead of looking at abortion as a part of medical coverage, we have allowed all kinds of political and religious posturing that do not contribute to the ultimate goal of health care reform: to improve access to care and coverage, not to create new restrictions. Toobin continues:

Yet it's not only with regard to insurance that abortion services are being treated like a second-class form of medicine. There is, for instance, the proliferation of "conscience clauses," which allow medical professionals to refuse to conduct procedures that they disapprove of. Shortly after Roe, Congress passed the first major conscience clause, which stated that medical professionals and hospitals that receive certain federal funds did not have to provide abortions or sterilizations if they objected on "the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions." The Bush Administration sought to dramatically expand the clauses to cover not only doctors and nurses but anyone who works in a hospital, including pharmacists, and to increase the range of practices that might be rejected-a step that could potentially include such services as the dispensing of birth control. President Obama has said that he will revise or overturn the policy.

The President is pro-choice, and he has signaled some misgivings about the Stupak amendment. But, like many modern pro-choice Democrats, he has worked so hard to be respectful of his opponents on this issue that he sometimes seems to cede them the moral high ground. In his book "The Audacity of Hope," he describes the "undeniably difficult issue of abortion" and ponders "the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion." Elsewhere, he announces, "Abortion vexes." The opponents of abortion aren't vexed-they are mobilized, focused, and driven to succeed.

Toobin's conclusion is one we would all do well to remember:

Every diminished of that right diminishes women. With stakes of such magnitude, it is wise to weigh carefully the difference between compromise and surrender.

Abortion fight is excuse to kill reform, Pelosi says [Politico]
Can the Dems Overcome Their Abortion Split on Health Care? [Time]
Abortion deal spins a very tangled web [Politico]
Stupak is as Stupak Does [The New Republic]
Misuse of Guttmacher Statistic on Insurance Coverage of Abortion [Guttmacher Institute]

In a new interview with ABC News, Obama explains that the wedge issues currently receiving so much attention weren't really the point of the bill:

You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.

And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it's not going to change.

So, you know, this is going to be a complex set of negotiations. I'm confident that we can actually arrive at this place where neither side feels that it's being betrayed. But it's going to take some time.

I still hate that "sneaking in funding for abortions" line: It's like the lawmakers heard the cries for affordable premiums and comprehensive coverage, and thought Yeah, but what about all those unscrupulous whores scheming to use their health care coverage to go to abortion parties and make fetus-necklaces? WTF? Doesn't the Hyde Amendment go far enough?

Melissa McEwan at Shakesville thinks Obama's milquetoast cry for unity is a crock:

There is no fucking "common ground" between people who believe in women's right to autonomy over their own bodies and people who believe that women's bodies are property of the government, or their doctors, or their husbands, or anyone else who gets a vote on whether they have to be pregnant even if they don't want to be. Either you stand on the side of women's equality and independence or you don't.

It is fucking ludicrous that our DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT refuses to take a stand on this issue.

And this mealy-mouthed bullshit-"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill"-is contemptibly craven. I'm absolutely fucking livid that a man who had the audacity to claim to be a champion of women's right to choose would abandon women in this way.

Nancy Pelosi is cool with her decision, saying:

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday that while she opposes an anti-abortion amendment to the House version of the health care bill, it was necessary for the measure to pass.

The California Democrat said the language to prohibit the new government insurance plan from covering abortions "would have been in the bill one way or another." She said backers of the far-reaching legislation to overhaul the U.S. health care system thought it was better to have the language included as an amendment to be voted on than as a provision "that could take down the whole bill."

Pelosi, please. Why didn't you launch a counter-attack explaining that certain factions want to use health care reform as a weapon for their pet issue? Put some pressure on people! They had no problem making issues out of non issues, as is made clear by these comments from Senator Kent Conrad:

"I think all of us have recognized throughout that there are three things" - abortion, illegal immigration and the public option - "that could really bring this down," said Conrad, the only Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee to vote with Republicans on amendments restricting abortion rights.

The only thing that should have conceivably been on that list is the public option. But abortion and the issues of undocumented workers and resources? It's trumped up bullshit, preventing people from paying attention to little asides like this one:

Summarizing her study of the bill over the past 10 weeks, [Senator Susan] Collins said it was "too timid" in revamping the health care system to reward high-quality care. She said the bill included "billions of dollars in new taxes and fees that will drive up the cost of health insurance premiums."

And she noted that many of the taxes would take effect before the government started providing subsidies to low- and middle-income people to help them buy insurance.

Thus, Ms. Collins said, "there will be a gap for even low-income people where the effect of these fees will be passed on to consumers and increase premiums before any subsidies are available to offset those costs."

The bill sets standards for the value of insurance policies, stipulating that they must cover at least 65 percent of medical costs, on average.

Most policies sold in the individual insurance market in Maine do not meet those standards, Ms. Collins said, so many insurers would have to raise premiums to comply with the requirements. As a result, she said, the premium for a 40-year-old buying the most popular individual insurance policy in Maine would more than double, to $455 a month.

Wait, wait, wait - what? Fuck this, let's call Angie from Politifact on this one.

In the meantime, NPR published a quick guide to the language, noting:

Government Money: In general, government money cannot be used to pay for abortion. The government-administered health plan - often called the public option - will not cover abortion, unless a doctor certifies that a woman is in danger of death without one, or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

If you get your health insurance through the government, or with help from the government in the form of a tax subsidy, your plan will not cover abortion. In this case, you would have the right to buy extra coverage - with your own money.

If you get your health insurance through your state, as in Medicaid, your state could buy supplemental abortion coverage for everyone it insures. And 17 states already do this under Medicaid.

The Exchange: The next section of the abortion amendment deals with the exchange. That's the government-administered service where people can buy insurance and join a risk pool. One of the reasons health care is so expensive for people who don't get it through their work is that they're not in a large risk pool. The bill tries to group them together and cut costs for everyone.

Private insurance companies that offer a health plan through the exchange are allowed to cover abortion. But if they're going to, the companies must also offer another plan that is identical in every way, except that it does not cover abortion.

So, say you're buying insurance with your own money, and you get it through the exchange. You can choose a policy that covers abortion, or one that doesn't. But if you're getting help from the government to buy that insurance - in the form of a tax subsidy - you may not choose a plan that covers abortion. You are still allowed to buy a supplemental policy with your own money.

Private Insurance: The Stupak amendment does not apply to private insurance bought with private money. It is also not close to becoming law. The Senate bill does not have similar language, though lawmakers on both sides of the debate are now looking at it.

Politifact goes a bit further, denying a lot of the pro-choice rhetoric surrounding Stupid-Shits, saying that there is no proof that doomsday is on the way. Taking on Representative Nita Lowey's comments, Politifact writes:

But Lowey said the amendment "puts new restrictions on women's access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market even when they would pay premiums with their own money." We believe that Lowey's formulation is, at best, misleading. The people who would truly pay all of the premium with their own money — and who would not use federal subsidies at all — are not barred in any way from obtaining abortion coverage, even if they obtain their insurance from the federally administered health exchange.

Lowey's office counters that exchange participants who get the subsidies do indeed pay a share of their premiums with their own money, maybe even a majority of the cost. But if that's what Lowey meant, she should have said abortion coverage would be prohibited "even when they pay part, or most, of their premiums with their own money." Not making that distinction, combined with her failure to specify that she was discussing only people who use the exchange, suggests that the restrictions are more severe and widespread than they actually are.

Some in the abortion-rights community do actually make a stronger case that the amendment would harm individuals who pay for their coverage without subsidies. This line of argument involves what insurance companies might do from a business perspective in response to the amendment.

Some critics say that the amendment throws up enough obstacles against offering abortion coverage on the health exchange — particularly the requirement to offer two separate plans, one of them without abortion provisions — that insurers will simply take the path of least resistance and offer a single plan that leaves out abortion coverage. Some also argue that companies will be reluctant to offer riders for abortion coverage, or that there won't be much demand for them. This could indirectly diminish the abortion coverage options for people on the exchange who don't take subsidies, even though the law doesn't limit their options directly.

There's plenty of room for debate about how the Stupak-Pitts amendment will eventually shape the availability of abortion coverage.

There is tons of room for debate, especially when the assumption is that women are the unscrupulous whores, and not the "profits over patients" philosophy of insurance companies. They're supposed to trust the same people that classified domestic violence as a pre-existing condition and denied a four month old coverage for being fat? And they're supposed to trust that what they produce won't amount to an abortion penalty? Not happening. Even if insurance companies still offer the same coverage they always have, it would amount to the middle class facing what poor women have since the 70s - when you accept government funds, you are giving the government the right to dictate the decisions you make about your life and your well being. Planned Parenthood is calling it "the middle class abortion ban," but any way you slice it, the ramifications of this amendment are far reaching.

Still, the debate promises to get more interesting. There are rumors swirling about former President Bill Clinton getting involved with health care reform, and one of the staunchest Roe foes, Senator Bob Casey, has stated "health care reform should not be used to change longstanding policies regarding federal financing of abortion which has been in place since 1976."

Curiouser and Curiouser.

TRANSCRIPT: ABC News Exclusive Interview with President Barack Obama [ABC News]
Pelosi discusses health care bill on Seattle tour [AP]
Senate faces abortion rights rift [Politico]
Obama Seeks Revision of Plan's Abortion Limits [NY Times]
Official Site [Politifact]
Breaking Down Abortion Language In Health Bill [NPR]
Lowey says Stupak amendment restricts abortion coverage even for those who pay for their own plan [Politifact]
Too Fat for Health Insurance? At Four Months? [ABC News]
"Middle-class abortion ban" [Politico]
Bill Clinton Tackles Senate Abortion Rift [CBS News]
Casey: No new abortion restrictions in bill [Politico]

Earlier:

Reproductive Rights Left Behind After Health Care Bill Passes House
Democrats Vow To Eliminate Domestic Violence As Pre-Existing Condition

Greg Sargent reports at least 41 pro-choice Democrats have signed a letter to Nancy Pelosi stating the following:

As Members of Congress we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women's access to reproductive health services.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women's right to choose any further than current law.

For those of you who (like me, initially) are confused about how this extremely complicated and at times disheartening process works, what happens now is that the Senate needs to pass its own version of the healthcare bill, and then the two houses of Congress must hash out a single version in conference committee. That version needs to be approved by the House and Senate — and 41 House Dems say they won't vote for it unless what Latoya aptly calls the Stupid-Shits Amendment, which would prohibit women who receive government subsidies from buying abortion coverage even with their own money, is removed. As Sargent points out, their language is "unequivocal, with no wiggle room." And Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (video above) pledges that the Stupak Amendment will be gone from the bill when it comes back from committee. Sargent says it will be difficult for the letter's signatories to back away from their position now. He explains,

It will be much tougher for pro-choice Dems to cave and support the bill with Stupak than it was for House progressives to cave and back the bill despite its lack of a robust public option.

Here's why: Because the public option had initially been written off for dead, the version liberals did secure allowed them to claim they had won something. By contrast, Stupak is a significant step backward for advocates of abortion rights and women's health issues. So it will be much tougher for pro-choice House Dems to back a final bill with Stupak in the end.

According to Stephanie Condon of CBS, Pelosi can only afford to lose 40 Democratic votes if she wants the health-care bill to pass, so the 41 signatories to the letter constitute a serious threat. Will that threat be enough to convince the conference committee to soften its line on abortion? Will the 41 Democrats actually kill a healthcare reform bill that would — again, as Latoya pointed out — do many good things, if it fails in this one key area? If Stupak stays in, and the Dems cave, would Obama even sign a bill with such severe abortion restrictions? White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was vague on this point, saying only that "I am not going to become a negotiator on Capitol Hill from the podium" and "We will wait to see what health care reform brings." His failure to denounce the amendment does make it seem like Obama might compromise on abortion to push healthcare reform through. The fate of the final bill is still so uncertain, however, that it's hard to begin the upsetting calculus of whether the compromise would be worth it. Only one thing's for sure — as Sargent says, "This will intensify."

Obtained: In Letter To Pelosi, 41 House Dems Pledge To Vote Against Bill With Anti-Abortion Amendment [The Plum Line]
Wasserman-Schultz: We Will Kill Stupak Amendment [The Plum Line]
Health Care Progress Report: November 9 [CBS]
White House Not Opposing Stupak Amendment [Politico]

Earlier: Reproductive Rights Left Behind After Health Care Bill Passes House

The reports from Washington are unambiguous. Health care reform was actually war on Roe:

The House passed its version of health-care legislation Saturday night by a vote of 220 to 215 after the approval of an amendment that would sharply restrict the availability of coverage for abortions, which many insurance plans now offer. The amendment goes beyond long-standing prohibitions against public funding for abortions, limiting abortion coverage even for women paying for it without government subsidies.

Wow. I suppose advocating for smaller, less intrusive government ends at womens' wombs.

Obama left the abortion issue unmentioned Sunday when he appeared in the White House Rose Garden to give brief remarks congratulating the House on its "courageous" passage of the bill. "Now it falls on the United States Senate to take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people," he said. "And I'm absolutely confident that they will."

Other issues remain unresolved. The House bill's primary new revenue source to pay for the bill is an income tax surcharge on families earning more than $1 million; the Senate bill will probably rely on a proposed new excise tax on costly insurance plans. The House and Senate also differ on a government-run insurance plan to be offered on the new marketplace where small businesses and people without employer-provided coverage — about 30 million in all — would buy coverage. [...]

The bills also differ in their requirements for employers to provide coverage — the House's language is tougher — and in the subsidies for those who cannot afford coverage, which are larger in the House version. Both bills deny subsidies to illegal immigrants, but the Senate version goes further by also barring them from buying coverage on the new marketplace with their own money.

So, let's recap:

1. No public option
2. We have an exchange that assumes a relative definition of "affordable"
3. Somehow, they managed to work this so that even women who were paying for their own care got conned out of abortion coverage
4. Undocumented workers can't access this plan, even without subsidies, though they - like other human beings - get sick and need treatment like everyone else.

Ladies and gentlemen, we got hosed.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment (which I am highly tempted to rename Stupid-Shits) was considered to be the way to compromise and move the bill forward. Senator Claire McCaskill is trying to hedge on behalf of the allegedly pro-choice Dems who voted for the bill, saying:

the amendment in the House health care reform bill is narrow, barring any insurance plan that is purchased with governments subsidies from covering abortion. The vast majority of Americans would not fall into that category, she said.

Nope. Poor people, you get what you get and you will be grateful.

The right-leaning Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, doesn't mince words:

The House's 11th-hour change to its health bill removes abortion coverage from millions of insurance policies that consumers would get under the legislation, including from private insurers.

Anyone who receives a new government tax credit to buy health insurance couldn't enroll in an insurance plan that covers abortion. A proposed government insurance plan also wouldn't cover the procedure. That's a sharp reversal from the original bill, which included abortion coverage in the public plan and allowed those with a tax credit to enroll in a plan that covers the procedure.

Abortion-rights supporters say the change would likely prevent any insurer who sells policies on the new government insurance exchanges from covering abortions, regardless of whether the purchaser is using a tax credit. [...]

Private plans inside the exchange would still be able to sell policies that cover abortion to anyone who isn't getting a tax credit. But they would have to create a special policy for that group. Insurers may be reluctant to do so because it could complicate how they pool risk and force them to label policies in a way that could draw attention from abortion opponents.

Those who receive an insurance subsidy and want coverage for abortion would need to buy a separate rider policy. "What woman would buy a plan for an unplanned pregnancy?" said Ms. Rubiner of Planned Parenthood. She said only a handful of states currently allow for such a policy.

In addition, NARAL Pro-Choice America is convinced that this amendment doesn't pass the sniff test:

• The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.
• Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

On November 6th, before the announcement of Stupak-Pitts, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend published an op-ed in Newsweek, urging Catholic leaders to re-examine their push to end access to abortion through health care reform:

The current House health-care bill expressly prohibits federal funding of abortion and excludes the procedure from the minimum benefits package. It includes provisions that existing state laws and conscience laws will be respected. The House bill makes buying private health coverage affordable by offering tax credits to families with modest incomes. Moreover, the bill proposes a common-sense solution to ensuring that federal funds are not used for paying for abortion. The bill creates a mechanism for segregating private dollars from public funds to ensure that only private dollars go toward abortion coverage. This is a common practice in negotiating the role of religion in the public square. Similarly, Catholic schools receive federal funding for nonreligious services as long as those funds are separated from the school's religious work. If this solution is good enough for Catholic schools, then it is certainly good enough for health-care reform, and it reflects well on the tolerant and pluralistic society we have created. Most importantly, the bill does what the president promised health-care reform would do-it ensures that no one loses benefits they currently have.

Unfortunately, this reasonable approach is under attack from some Roman Catholic bishops who object even to the use of private dollars for women to exercise their conscience. They are determined to make abortion illegal, even if it derails health-care reform entirely-no matter the cost to women and children-and regardless of whether it would actually have any impact on the number of abortions in this country. (In fact, comprehensive health care could well reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and subsequent abortions.) In politics, this is called using abortion as a "wedge" issue. And it's simply not right. It is not right to jeopardize health care for the millions of women and children who need it most by inserting abortion politics into the debate. As a Catholic, I admire the bishops for their dedication to social justice, but cannot understand why they would put the health of so many women and children at risk when there is not a single federal dollar being spent on abortion services. It's a view I believe many of my fellow Catholics share. I urge the bishops to recognize that the House bill contains a familiar and genuinely American solution to the challenge of weighing differing religious beliefs in the realm of public policy.

As I've said before, I consider myself "pro-conscience." Women do not make the decision to have an abortion lightly, but it is absolutely critical that they have the means to make this decision and access to the care they need, no matter what their choice. Anything less would be turning the clock back on the progress we have made on advancing women's health.

It isn't just the Catholics on this one, but I'll heartily cosign Kennedy Townsend's pragmatic, women-focused take on health care. Reducing or removing access to abortion is not an effective strategy because it doesn't work - as we've written about before, it just makes the stakes higher.

While I'm sucking on the bitter pomegranate seeds of disappointment, I will try to look on the health care bright side. For one thing, the Republicans from Louisiana are an interesting bunch to watch:

So on Saturday, [Republican Anh "Joseph"] Cao, the first Vietnamese American elected to Congress, surprised Democrats and Republicans by becoming the only one of the 177 House Republicans to support the health-care bill.

"I felt last night's decision was the right decision for my district, even though it was not the popular decision for my party," Cao told CNN on Sunday.

The decision, he said, was a lifeline to the poor and uninsured in his district, rejecting the idea that it had anything to do with reelection hopes. Members of both parties privately said, however, that Cao's prospects are doomed unless a large number of Democrats in his district embrace him. [...]

"I know that voting against the health-care bill will probably be the death of my political career," Cao told the Times-Picayune this year. But he added: "I have to live with myself, and I always reflect on the phrase of the New Testament, 'How does it profit a man's life to gain the world but to lose his soul?' ''

(The bitter seeds also compel me to mention that Cao waited until the Dems had a majority and then decided to cast his vote. He also made abortion restrictions a provision of his aisle crossing.)

Bipartisanship doesn't seem like so much fun anymore. As Paul Begala points out at the Daily Beast:

Obviously, passing major laws with bipartisan support is preferable. But not always. Twenty-eight House Democrats and 12 Senate Democrats voted for the Bush tax cut in 2001. Coupled with the 2003 Bush tax cuts, which also had some Democratic support, that vote ran up $2.5 trillion in debt. And for what? They didn't create jobs or reduce poverty or raise incomes for the middle class. In fact, median income fell by about $2,000 per family. Sure, the Bush tax cuts were bipartisan. But they were disastrous policy.

So, a good thing is that bipartisanship will hopefully be used in service of the greater good for all, instead of just a nice term to trot out at press conferences.

And Ann at Feministing points out things we should love about the bill, once we finish seething over the amendment:

*Expands Medicaid "to reach a wider range of poor households up to 150% of the federal poverty level.
36M additional Americans will now be eligible for Medicaid."

*Bars discrimination in health care on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.

*Acknowledges LGBTQ Americans are a population likely to "experience significant gaps in disease, health outcomes, or access to health care." This will hopefully ensure that LGBTQ people are included in future data collection, and that grant programs will focus on their specific health needs.

*Ends the "unfair practice of taxing employer-provided domestic partner health benefits, allowing thousands upon thousands of LGBT people to obtain domestic partner health benefits for their partners and families without having to pay a tax penalty through the nose."

*Allows states to cover early HIV treatment under their Medicaid programs. (Currently, states are only allowed to use Medicaid money for patients with full-blown AIDS.)

*Funds comprehensive sex-ed programs.

So there are some silver linings to this storm cloud but I'm beginning to wonder - even with the good additions - if we should have left fucked up enough alone.

Abortion an obstacle to health-care bill [Washington Post]
McCaskill: Abortion amendment no poison pill [Politico]
Late Change Drops Abortion Coverage [Wall Street Journal]
House: Yes to Extreme Anti-Choice Politics, No to Women's Health and Privacy [NARAL]
A Call to Catholics [Newsweek]
A vote to make or break a career [Washington Post]
Forget Bipartisanship [The Daily Beast]
Good news in the health care bill [Feministing]
39 Democrats voted against the Affordable Health Care for America Act #HCR [Culture Kitchen]

Earlier:

NYT: Filipinos Fight For Reproductive Justice

Palin posted several rants yesterday, most of them aimed at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for wanting to push the bill through by midnight. "Why the rush?" Palin asked in a note titled "Speaker Pelosi, Your Blue Dogs Are Barking," "That's a lot of pages to read. Why not give everyone the chance to read it and debate it?"

In a second note, titled "The Pelosi Bill Was Rammed Through On Saturday, But Sunday's Coming," Palin celebrates the passage of the Stupak Amendment (surprise, surprise), but once again trots out her old "death panel" fear mongering and asks her readers to check out the provisions regarding coverage for illegal aliens, though she doesn't actually quote the bill or point out what these provisions are:

All of us who value the sanctity of life are grateful for the success of the pro-life majority in the House this evening in its battle against federal funding of abortion in this bill, but it's ironic because we were promised that abortion wasn't covered in the bill to begin with. Our healthy distrust of these government leaders made us look deeper into the bill because unfortunately we knew better than to trust what they were saying. The victory tonight to amend the bill and eliminate that federal funding for abortion was great – because abortion is not health care. Now we can only hope that Rep. Stupak's amendment will hold in the final bill, though the Democratic leadership has already refused to promise that it won't be scrapped later.

We had been told there were no "death panels" in the bill either. But look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care.

But in perhaps the most interesting section of her rant, Palin builds several conspiracy theories regarding Pelosi's desire to push the bill through the House:

Despite Americans' decisive message last Tuesday that they reject the troubling path this country has been taking, Speaker Pelosi has broken her own promises of transparency to ram a health "care" bill through the House of Representatives just before midnight. Why did she push the 2,000 page bill this weekend? Was she perhaps afraid to give her peers and the constituents for whom she works the chance to actually read this monstrous bill carefully, if at all? Was she concerned that Americans might really digest the details of a bill that the Wall Street Journal has called "the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced"?

I don't know, you guys. I mean, maybe Speaker Pelosi was afraid that Sarah Palin would totally read the bill after she finished reading all the newspapers and magazines and she just wanted to push it through so she could be all "Oh, Sarah Palin, don't you have some designer suits to return? Oh snap flowchart: women in politics edition." Most likely, however, Speaker Pelosi was less concerned with Palin's death panel fearmongering conspiracy theories and more concerned with trying to take the steps necessary to eventually provide coverage for millions of Americans.

In any case, here are a few more guesses as to why Speaker Pelosi had to have the bill passed by Saturday at midnight:

• Really wants to watch the Mad Men season finale without being worried about all that health care hullabaloo
• Not ready to share her werewolf issues with the American public just yet
• Plans to spend all day Sunday praying that pro-choice voters will forget about the passage of the Stupak Amendment (not gonna happen!)
• Trying to prove to the rest of the House reps that C-SPAN is where it's AT on Saturday nights
• Made a deal with Fairy Godmother: Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo provision ensures coverage for Godmothers with magical powers; failure to pass bill by midnight would have turned the United States into a giant pumpkin

Feel free to add your own conspiracy theories in the comments.

The Pelosi Bill Was Rammed Through On Saturday, But Sunday Is Coming [Sarah Palin]
Speaker Pelosi, Your Blue Dogs Are Barking [Sarah Palin]

[Washington, D.C., November 5. Image via Getty]

WASHINGTON - NOVEMBER 05: Anti-abortion demonstrator Diana Roccograndi of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, wear a paper mask of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) while protesting outside the Cannon House Office Building November 5, 2009 in Washington, DC. The protesters were voicing their opposition to Congress' health care reform legislation, saying it supports government funding of abortion. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

In a seven page piece exploring everything from Pelosi's preferences for dark chocolate ice cream to her varying smiles, writer Vanessa Grigoriadis paints an interesting - and slightly familiar - portrait of the Speaker of the House.

She's a kind of Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland, imperious with her power and relishing her ability to attack, dropping bombs like "If people are ripping your face off, you have to rip their faces off."

Detailing what Pelosi's foes have to say about her (notable comments include "Mussolini in a skirt" and "domestic enemy of the Constitution") as well as her falling approval ratings, one gets the impression that Nancy Pelosi doesn't really give a fuck what's happening around her as long as she can do her job:

All of which might inspire some worry in a person who was paying attention. But Pelosi, pretty much, isn't. She doesn't often watch cable news or follow blogs, and her cell phone of choice is a Motorola Razr. She definitely isn't watching Fox, and can't really tell Sean Hannity apart from the other anchors. For the most part, Pelosi is in a bubble, where much of what passes for politics doesn't penetrate. Her face, the one with the frozen smile, is her mask. She often seems unaware of how it looks. For her, the world consists of her members, her donors, and her family, plus President Obama and Rahm Emanuel, whom she sometimes speaks to several times a day. As far as she's concerned, anything else, and that includes the press, is a petty distraction from her "historic work," as she likes to say, before ticking off the accomplishments of Congress on her watch over the last two and a half years: the passage of large increases in college aid and veterans' health care, raising fuel-efficiency standards and the minimum wage, and ethics reform, not to mention the stimulus, bailout, and a climate-change bill that she masterfully shepherded through the House-where it passed by a margin of one vote.

Translation: Fuck you, she's handling her business.

Throughout her piece, Grigoriadis repeatedly raises the idea that Pelosi is wearing a mask , paying special attention to those moments when Pelosi drops her guard and her "true nature" is revealed:

Pelosi's bill will get diluted later in conference, and who knows how reform might actually play out. As a health-care CEO put it to me, "the only thing that keeps an oncologist out of a patient's coffin is nails." But national health care, even a watered-down version-what a legacy.

"Not so fast on that, on the legacy," says Pelosi, taking a seat in a cream-colored chair in her beautiful office, sun pouring into the room from a high narrow window. She breaks into one of her grins. "I said to Al Gore one time, ‘Your work here will be part of your legacy,' and he said, ‘Um, is there a message here?' " Then the smile is gone, and she begins to frown: Pelosi dislikes the perception of hogging credit, and has even decreed that her staff not use the word I when writing for her. "No," she says. "This is about the health of our country, diet, the way we live, pursuing a more wholesome path. It's personal. It's economic. Imagine what would happen if you could have any job you wanted without worrying about needing health care." She pauses. "And it won't be my legacy. It will be everyone's legacy." She gives a tight smile. "I don't even think in terms of legacy." The eyes pop. "I mean, what?"

Another episode about chocolate ice cream reveals how quickly Pelosi can flip if she starts to feel attacked. After describing how Pelosi giggles when one of her staffers (Grigoriadis writes "servant") brings her two scoops of dark chocolate ice cream, she relates the following story:

Chocolate ice cream is the staple of Pelosi's diet: She doesn't cook herself, so except for a salad for lunch and whatever an aide hands her for dinner, that's what she eats. "I think that's the first time she's ever turned it down," whispers her personal assistant, later. "The other day, she came in at 8:45 a.m. carrying a pint of Häagen-Dazs with an inch left in it-she'd eaten the whole thing on the way in. She handed it off to Michael, and then two hours later, she said, ‘Where's that ice cream? Can I eat the rest of that?' " (At one point, when she mentions to me that she likes artisanal ice cream, I joke, "Oh, elitist ice cream," and she shoots back: "It's not elite. It's not elite. It's just a small operation.")

In addition to the mask references, Grigoriadis also plays up the congressional royalty aspects of Pelosi's personality.

Unlike in the Senate, the majority rules absolutely in the House, and that suits Pelosi. She may not want to be a queen-when members of the Black Caucus called her that once, she said, with typical regal flourish, "I am not an emperor or a queen, but neither am I a fool"-but in reality, the House is hers to rule. If Pelosi wants to put a member on Ways and Means, she just makes the committee bigger. If a member is upset, she can give him a big office budget. If he's still not happy and she knows he has an interest in NATO, she can prioritize his access to an airplane and off he goes. This has let her create a leadership style that's less stick and more carrot. She maintains goodwill by feminine touches like presents of flowers, weekly meetings with freshmen, thank-you notes, calls to associates' sick family members. "Nancy has a minister's political skills," says Majority Whip James Clyburn. "She looks for common ground, seeing and feeling things that most people don't."

Amid all the discussions of giggling and Pelosi's personal touches, what's often obscured is Pelosi's keen mind for strategy. As Grigoriadis writes:

This is her Congress: She engineered the strategy for taking back the House in 2006 with Rahm Emanuel, a two-year congressman she tapped to be her deputy, and who likes to call her "mommy." That was a time of some intense giggling, with the two of them-the fancy lady and the potty-mouthed Rahmbo-so ambitious, so driven, that every possible seat that could be occupied by a Democrat is now occupied by a Democrat, which is an opportunity and a challenge. There's nowhere to go but down.

Clearly, Nancy Pelosi is very skilled at understanding how political games are played. In one of the more revealing moments in the piece, Pelosi's tough exterior is shown to be wrapped in pragmatism, with a steely understanding that while ideals are nice, the important thing is making sure the work proceeds:

The other party is very much outside her bubble, barely noticed. "Nancy really doesn't care about Republicans, because she doesn't believe the whole bi-partisan thing exists," says a close associate. "Her attitude is, ‘God bless their souls, but these people don't believe in global warming. They just don't agree with us.' " She loves Obama, knows that he's her best hope. "She has a new source of energy, in wanting this young man to succeed," says Congressman George Miller, a close friend, a bit gooily. But there have been a few rocks here and there. She was getting upset over the summer, says a source, at the way Obama was pandering to conservatives to secure a bi-partisan bill, though her office says she was more concerned with the lethargy of the finance committee at the time. Don't waste your time, they are not voting with us, she told him. Did someone tell you they would? The president's attitude was, well, the Republicans are elected, and we're elected; let's all make this work together. Emanuel would get the same earful from her: Does the president not understand the way this game works? He wants to get it done and be loved, and you can't do both-which does he want?

Specific discussions of how her gender has impacted her perception in the public sphere are limited in the piece, but Grigoriadis does make an excellent point about the balancing act that women endure, in attempts to look both tough and vulnerable without looking hard or weak.

To look weak in public, well, that's Pelosi's worst nightmare. Hillary might cry to boost her poll numbers, but a powerful woman nearing 70 always keeps a stiff upper lip, never showing more emotion than Maggie Thatcher. And, in a way, it works for Pelosi, having the world see only the hard shell, thinking she's an archetypal female monster with a pasted-on smile. The smile is meant to balance out her aggressive rhetoric, to calm men down, to seem less threatening (it doesn't work, of course); but it is also a way of shutting people out of her true emotions, who she really is. But that's okay-she is willing to have people not understand her. If need be, she's willing to be hated. Not caring makes Pelosi powerful. She'll listen to her poll numbers from her staff, but she doesn't really process them. "I'll take the hit," she likes to say, waving a hand. "I'll take the hit."

Some of Pelosi's nature could probably be ascribed to her upbringing in Baltimore, where she was knee-deep into politics from an early age:

She's the seventh child and only daughter of Thomas "Big Tommy" D'Alesandro Jr., a slick dresser who wore diamond rings on each of his pinkies and began representing Little Italy in Maryland's House of Delegates at 22, followed by five terms in Congress and three as Baltimore's mayor. (When asked about his rival in one election, D'Alesandro said, "I don't know [who he is], but it's some no-good son of a bitch, that's all I can tell you.") Nancy's childhood home functioned as D'Alesandro's auxiliary office, with a portrait of FDR in the living room, copies of The Congressional Record stored under her bed, and an open door for constituents searching for jobs, permits, stop signs.

The political arena is not a place for the faint of heart, and through her years in Congress, Pelosi has always focused on the bottom line: does she have the votes? A master politico, Pelosi is credited with "raising $155 million" for the Democratic Party over the last seven years, and her ability to give the outward appearance of compromise while pressing for her beliefs has served her well. But still, even while she works to balance her two selves, she still isn't going to stand there and take anyone's shit.

Last week, at the unveiling ceremony for her new health-care bill on the Capitol steps, she smiled away, reminding everybody that they should celebrate this historic day. On the lawn, a knot of protesters kept shouting at her, distracting from her important purpose. "You will burn in hell for this," one man yelled into his megaphone, over and over.

She tried to ignore him, but finally shot a withering look his way. "Thank you, insurance companies of America," she declared, smirking a little.

The mask is back on.

Why Is Nancy Pelosi Always Smiling? [NY Magazine]

The Politico reports:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Democrats Tuesday night that she wants to move forward with the more liberal version of a House health reform bill that would peg government-run coverage to Medicare – setting up a clash with moderates in her caucus who oppose the plan.

Pelosi told her rank-and-file that she has more than 200 votes for a public option tethered to Medicare and that she wants to "see if we can find the remaining votes," one member present said afterward.

"We are very close and I count tough," Pelosi told the room, according to one person in the room. She asked Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) to ask his deputies to survey members in the next 24 hours to see if she could get to 218 votes for the bill, several members said after the meeting.

According to preliminary numbers, the final bill being sought by Pelosi would cost an estimated $870 billion over the next 10 years - well under President Barack Obama's $900 billion target - and cover 96 percent of those Americans who qualify for coverage. The plan wouldn't add to the deficit over its first decade, but it's less clear whether it is deficit neutral in the second 10 years.

However, Matthew Yglesias points out that we (as a public) still aren't quite sure what a public option actually does, much less how it would benefit us:

This whole set-up is, frankly, too complicated to explain in a poll question. But according to the Post's poll, 57 percent of Americans say they would support "having the government create a new health-insurance plan to compete with private health-insurance plans." Of the 40 percent who are opposed, 45 percent say they would change their minds "if this government-sponsored plan was run by state governments and was available only to people who did not have a choice of affordable private insurance."

The preference for a state-run plan seems to evince a lack of understanding of the policy issues. This might work well enough for large states like California, Texas, and New York. But a program that insures only a relatively small fraction of the population of a small state like Vermont or Montana might be too small to be viable. Insurance needs scale to spread risk. What's more, state-based plans would, in most places at least, lack the leverage necessary to bargain effectively with providers, thus defeating one of the major motivations for creating a public option.

The business about limiting eligibility to people who don't have a choice of affordable private insurance suggests confusion on the part of the pollster. Under all proposals, people currently insured through their employers or existing government programs would be ineligible. At the same time, under all proposals everyone will be eligible for a level of subsidies designed to make insurance affordable. So this proposed modification to the plan would either change nothing, or else it would exclude absolutely everyone from the public plan. The question, in other words, doesn't really make sense. Most likely whoever put the question together was simply confused, and respondents just played along.

This is a reminder, most of all, that public opinion polls tend to be unreliable when unfamiliar questions are asked. The public, moreover, isn't composed of policy wonks. And the news sources most people rely on barely even try to explain policy specifics. Consequently, it would be exceedingly unwise for politicians to pay an undue amount of deference to poll results when outlining major policy measures. What will make health reform popular or unpopular at the end of the day will be whether or not people feel that it works for them. A public option should make reform work better, and that's the best reason-both politically and substantively-to include one.

Guess we'll find out those details a little later.

As Pelosi is stepping up her support for the public option, President Obama is deliberately stepping back:

After spending much of the summer and most of September banging his presidential drum in favor of a health care overhaul, Mr. Obama, entering what one senior White House official called "a quiet period," is intentionally lowering his public profile on the issue, for the moment.

The idea, aides said, is for the president to take a breather while Democrats resolve their internal conflicts, so he can come back strong with a fresh sales pitch when the legislation moves closer to floor votes. [...]

"He's been in very great danger of people hitting the mute button when he comes on television to talk about health care," said David Gergen, who has advised both Republican and Democratic presidents on communications strategy. "So I think it's wise to take a pause here and come back in full voice to make his case, because people are going to be more ready to listen again."

In the meantime, Democrats and Republicans are continuing to lob darts at one another. The Republicans are railroading plans to increase Medicare payments to doctors because there is no provision to offset the payments.

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said, "I hope that there will be senators on both sides of the aisle who revolt at the majority leader's push to purchase the support of physicians by, in essence, creating legislation that puts our country another quarter-trillion dollars in debt."

Won't someone please think of kids like Deamonte? This isn't purchasing support of physicians, it's allowing them to see more people. Oh, the (lack of) humanity...

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats are striking fear into the hearts of insurance companies by examining their antitrust protection:

Top Senate Democrats intend to try to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws, according to congressional officials, the latest evidence of a deepening struggle over President Barack Obama's effort to overhaul the health care industry.

If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor. [...]

In a statement, the major industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the industry already was one of the most regulated in the country. The focus on the industry's antitrust exemption, it said, was "a political ploy designed to distract attention away from the real issue of rising health care costs."

In the midst of all this, Pelosi is still trying to cobble up the 218 votes she needs to push this bill through. Good luck with that, Madame. And let TLC be your guide.

Pelosi pushes strong public option [Politico]
What's the Public Option, Again? [The Daily Beast]

Obama Takes a Health Care Hiatus [NY Times]
Senate Democrats Hit Snag With Doctor Payment Bill [NY Times]
Remember Deamonte? [Washington Post]
Dems eye insurance industry's antitrust protection [AP]

The House vote on the defense bill was 281 to 146. Unlike usual defense bill votes, most of those in opposition — 131 out of the 146 — were Republicans objecting strenuously to inclusion of what they referred to as "thought crimes" legislation in a defense bill.

"The inclusion of 'thought crimes' legislation in what is otherwise a bipartisan bill for troop funding is an absolute disgrace," said Rep. Tom Price of Georgia, head of the GOP conservative caucus.

And why were they so upset? They were just looking out for hate speech:

GOP opponents were not assuaged by late changes in the bill to strengthen protections for religious speech and association — critics had argued that pastors expressing beliefs about homosexuality could be prosecuted if their sermons were connected to later acts of violence against people who are gay.

Supporters countered that prosecution could occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protester could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality.

Well, as long as that's settled...

This legislation comes at an interesting time. One of the Republicans protested:

"This is radical social policy that is being put on the defense authorization bill, on the backs of our soldiers, because they probably can't pass it on its own," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said.

Right...because soldiers couldn't possibly have an interest in protections that now include sexual orientation, gender, gender identification, and disability. I mean, obviously, every single red-blooded American solider is male, het, and proud! Well, unless you're a female soldier being dismissed due to Don't Ask Don't Tell:

All the services kicked out a disproportionate number of women under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, according to Department of Defense data obtained by the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The center studies gender and sexuality in the military. [...]

In addition, the Army removed more women under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy at a greater rate than men when compared with the ratio of women to men in each service.

Of those discharged under the policy, 36 percent were women, although women make up only 14 percent of troops in the Army, the data showed.

But who cares about facts? To the Republicans, these are "thought crimes" not "losing my job to discriminatory practices" problems or "tie someone to a fence after pistol whipping and torturing them" crimes. So, it's perhaps a good thing that "The Laramie Project: 10 Years Later" is showing at 120 theaters around the globe on October 12th, to commemorate the 11th anniversary of Matthew Shepard's death from "thought crimes."

House Votes To Add Sexual Orientation To Law On Hate Crimes [Washington Post]
House Extends Hate Crime Law To Cover Gays [MSNBC]
More Women Than Men Dismissed From Military For Being Gay [CNN]
Guthrie To Present 'Laramie Project' Epilogue [MPR News]

The National Republican Congressional Committee laid down the gauntlet. Yesterday, Contessa Brewer called Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz to discuss the egregious remarkk, and it was evident that she was using all of her journalistic restraint not to go off. Brewer pointed out:

"Last week, when General Gates said the exact same thing, you didn't hear the Republicans standing up and saying that McChrystal should put him in his place."

Joanna Burgos, the NRCC spokesperson, didn't bother to engage with the charges of sexism, instead focusing on how Wasserman Schultz was "attacking white males," by revealing the demographic make-up of the NRCC and pointing to those same Faux News polls Karl Rove trotted out in the WSJ as proof that the GOP is winning over the public.

Brewer added, "even though our polls show the approval rating for Congressional Republicans at nine percent." For real, GOP, y'all need to stop testing her.

Wasserman Schultz pointed out that the Republicans hatred of women "goes wide and deep." (Case in point: Yesterday's vote on the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill.)

Brewer, however, had a point to drive home. She noted:

Even though Ken [Spain, spokesperson for the RNCC] had the opportunity to go back and say "You know, I poorly chose my words," he said "Nancy Pelosi is playing out of her league." [Why] is it that when men disagree with women they have to demean their intellect?

Brewer FTW!

Wasserman replied "when Republican men disagree with women." Personally, I'm with Brewer. The primaries showed us that a lot of Democrats don't really have an issue with misogyny, even if they aren't as willing to voice it as the Repubs.

Today, Pelosi struck back. saying, simply:

"It's really sad; they just don't know how inappropriate that is," she told reporters during her weekly presser on Thursday morning.

"I'm in my place. I'm the speaker of the House, the first woman speaker of the House, and I'm in my place because the House of Representatives voted me here. But that language is something I haven't even heard in decades."

Video here:

Predictably, the GOP had a response to that:

"Rather than deflecting from the real issue at hand and refocus on defeating terrorists, Nancy Pelosi would rather make party politics a higher priority than our national security. The fact of the matter is that most Americans agree with General McChrystal's strategy on Afghanistan, but Pelosi self-righteously believes she is better suited to craft our country's military policy. The last time Americans saw this type of outright contempt directed toward a four-star general is when this same San Francisco liberal attempted to undercut General David Petraeus by declaring his successful surge strategy a ‘failure.'"

Addition to the earlier list: Start firing people. NOW.

"I'm in my place. I'm the speaker of the House" [Politico]
GOP: Pelosi's Objection To Our "In Her Place" Crack Means She's Soft On Terror [The Plum Line]

Earlier:

Crazy Like A Fox: Karl Rove Declares Victory In Healthcare Conflict
Sen. Franken Fights KBR On Behalf Of Rape Vicitims
Pimp My GOP: How The Republican Party Can Become Relevant Again

[Washington, D.C., October 6. Image via Getty]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(C), D-NV, walk away after speaking to reporters in front of the West Wing after a meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan with US President Barack Obama October 6, 2009 at the White House in Washington, DC. Obama Tuesday sat down with senior lawmakers driving a raging debate on US Afghan strategy, as he works towards a decision on whether to send thousands more troops to war. Democratic and Republican leaders plus top members of key congressional committees met the president at the White House touting sharply conflicting visions of the next steps in the unpopular eight-year US military operation. Obama is methodically working through an internal policy review after US commander General Stanley McChrystal warned the war could be lost within a year without more troops, and reportedly asked for 40,000 more men. AFP PHOTO/Mandel NGAN (Photo credit should read MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

If you're just tuning in, the bills circulating right now would require insurers to keep federal money and private money separate, and only use the latter to cover abortions. But many are saying that's not a strong enough restriction, since it might give folks the unfortunate impression that abortion is a legal medical procedure.

Says The New York Times:

Abortion opponents in both the House and the Senate are seeking to block the millions of middle- and lower-income people who might receive federal insurance subsidies to help them buy health coverage from using the money on plans that cover abortion. And the abortion opponents are getting enough support from moderate Democrats that both sides say the outcome is too close to call.

Which would mean, as NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan spells out for us, that insurers who do cover abortions would likely stop, rather than accept being cut off from that money. "Women who already have this coverage would lose it," says Keenan. One assumes that's precisely the point.

"The question looms as a test of President Obama's campaign pledge to support abortion rights but seek middle ground with those who do not," says The Times. So what's Obama doing about it? Well, after a bunch of Democrats (along with 100 Republicans) wrote Nancy Pelosi a letter telling her they want more restrictions, and representative Bart Stupak of Michigan rounded up 40 Dems willing to block the bill if it doesn't ensure that women can't afford legal abortions no federal money will go anywhere near an insurer that covers abortions, the president gave Stupak a call. And according to Stupak, "He said: ‘Look, try to get this thing worked out among the Democrats. We want you to work it out within the party."

At the moment, then, I give Obama an F on that test of his campaign pledge. Forcing insurers to keep separate accounts for abortion coverage and everything else could plausibly fall under the heading of "supporting abortion rights but seeking middle ground." Letting more stringent restrictions pass, knowing full well they would cause many insurers to stop covering abortions altogether, falls under the heading of "chipping away at reproductive rights until it doesn't actually matter if abortion is technically legal." Anti-choicers have been successfully working that strategy for years, figuring abortion doesn't need to be outlawed if they can block women's access to it at every turn. Letting them get away with it here would not be compromise, but straight-up capitulation — and at this point, there's no telling which way our supposedly pro-choice president would go if it came down to him. Awesome.

Abortion Fight Complicates Debate on Health Care [NY Times]

In interviews with Politico, the law enforcement vets say that massive social change (e.g., first African-American president) + rageahol = scary shit. The typical profile of a presidential assassin (or would-be assassin) might be a whacked-out loner with no coherent political views, but even those "can be influenced by the atmosphere around them. Some of the security experts said angry rhetoric and images in the culture can agitate and inspire those loners to cross the line from anger to violence."

And yes, talk radio rants and even Joe Wilson's infamous tantrum count as potentially dangerous "examples of fraying American nerves." Former Secret Service agent Ronald Williams told Politico, "When there are vitriolic comments, acrimonious commentary and anger, the likelihood of violence escalates." Williams then added, "I'm not a real big fan of Nancy Pelosi's, but she is correct."

Speaking of out-of-control anger and "acrimonious comments," David Neiwert at Crooks and Liars notes that "ACORN" has pretty much officially become a euphemism for the N-word, as demonstrated in a video from the 9/12 Teabagger protest. The video shows a foaming-at-the-mouth middle-aged white dude chasing three African-Americans (there to sell "Don't Tread on Me" flags) out of the protest, screaming the whole time. Neiwert:

As you can see, the man — who identifies himself as Tim Jones — shouts after them: "ACORN! These people are ACORN!!! They are frauds!!! ACORN is fraud!!! Obama sucks! This woman sells signs for profit of ACORN!!"

It attracts more harassers, and it verges on the point of an outbreak of violence when the D.C. bicycle police show up and break up the scene.

The whole thing is worth watching, but the highlight for me is around 5:30, as Jones is recapping the incident for the camera. He says one of the women smacked him in the face and adds, "They were getting very aggressive — of course, that's the nature of these people! They try their best to incite you, so that you will act in an inappropriate fashion, and then they will blame you for your actions."

Call me crazy, but I'm not nearly as concerned about a few young flag-sellers inciting violence as I am about raving middle-aged white guys, from Tim Jones to Glenn Beck. As another former Secret Service agent, Joseph Petro, told Politico, "Politically inspired violence is a real problem. If you add in racism, the bandwidth of potential violence expands exponentially."

Social Change Could Spark Violence [Politico]
ACORN Is A Handy Substitute For The 'N Word': At 912 Event, Black Teens Harassed By Hysterical Teabaggers [Crooks And Liars]

• Catholics in Poland are urging the government there to cancel Madonna's August 15 concert, saying…

The pop star "cannot sing on the religious feast of the Blessed Virgin Mary." But everybody knows she cannot sing on the other 364 days of the year either. [UPI]

• Danny DeVito: drunk in the morning again. He was being interviewed live at 8 AM on Tuesday for a local news show while on the set of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Drunk while filming a comedy show? He's ruining feminism. [Perez Hilton]
• Michael Jackson may have messed up the Jackson family reunion concert that was in the works by allegedly breaching the contract his manager signed with an entertainment company who is suing Jackson for $40 million. So far, the rest of the family are keeping their noses out of the mess. [TMZ, USA Today]
• But Jacko can still moonwalk…or so he says…through a hospital mask. [TMZ]
• Ed McMahon has seemingly lost his battle to save his home from foreclosure. His house will be auctioned off by the bank in late June. [Radar]
• Kendra Wilkinson is pregnant and her former-Girls Next Door co-star Bridget Marquardt is throwing the baby shower. Judging from the housewarming present she gave Kendra, we can't wait to see what the layette set will have printed on it. [Us]
• Chris Brown's lawyer went to the California appeals court today to ask that his trial—for the alleged assault of Rihanna—be delayed. The judge denied the request, and the trial is still set for June 22. [TMZ]
• Life-size cardboard cutouts of Brad Pitt dressed as police officer have been placed by the most dangerous intersections in the city of Omsk, as a way to handle Siberia's speeding problem. According to Omsk officials, it's working. [Mirror]
• Myleene Klass, one of the hosts of I'm a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here! had to be rescued by Costa Rican hotel staff after she accidentally glued herself to the bed. [ONTD]
• Phil Spector's infamous large court hair was a wig!? He's bald in this mugshot, taken last week. [TSG]
• Shia LaBeouf gets his sense of humor where most people get their nightmares: From seeing his parents have sex. [Just Jared]
• Even more nightmare material: When Shia was 2 his dad would dress him up as a clown and make him walk around the neighborhood. How is this guy not a serial killer? [Parade]
• Shanna Moakler wants her job back as pageant director for Miss California USA now that proponent of opposite marriage Carrie Prejean got the boot. [TMZ]
• Hank Azaria and his girlfriend had a baby boy over the weekend. [People]
• "Obsessed" will be the first single released (on June 16) from Mariah Carey's new album—awesomely titled—Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel. [Rolling Stone]
• Mel Gibson and his soon-to-be-ex-wife Robyn have filed a joint request in court to keep the financial details of their divorce private. [TMZ]
• Michael Lohan is off the hook for that misdemeanor charge of aggravated harassment. [Yahoo]
• Sonja Norwood (aka the mother of Brandy and Ray J) filed a lawsuit against Kim Kardashian for allegedly using the Norwood family's credit card without permission when Kim was hired as Brandy's stylist. The lawsuit was dismissed. [People]
• Beyoncé in post-apocalyptic armor singing "If I Were a Boy" duet-style with George Michael goes from Beyond Thunderdome to beyond gay. It's hard to wrap one's head around this gender fuck, no matter how much weave is available. [WoW]
• Breaking: Nancy Pelosi and Owen Wilson had dinner at the D.C. restaurant Cafe Milano…at different tables. They didn't talk to each other or anything. [Politico]
• Bai Ling will play a hooker in Love Ranch—a film about the first legal brothel in Nevada, starring Helen Mirren—despite the fact the that she had her back to the camera during her screen test because she was in a "bad mood." [Daily Express]
• Keira Knightley and Colin Farrell have signed on to star in London Boulevard, the directorial debut of Oscar-winning screenwriter William Monahan. [THR]
• A Broadway revival of Babes in Arms is in the works, with Rosie O'Donnell as the star. [UPI]
• Sherri Shepherd is all pissed off that she can't eat the skin on a chicken leg, per her nutritionist's orders. She's trying to get a "bathing suit body" to reveal on The View by August 6. She's lost four pounds so far. [People]
• Hugh Grant tried to kick a paparazzo in the balls. The photog sold the footage, of course. [TMZ]
• Matthew McConaughey swears his bachelor days are over now that he has a child with his girlfriend. He referred to his family as a "tribe," so we're thinking that his naked-bongo days are still going strong. [Daily Express]
• Monica Seles is dating a cranky old billionaire—30 years her senior—who doesn't like paying taxes. [Wonkette]
• The record-breaking ratings of the premiere of Edie Falco's Nurse Jackie Monday night were so impressive that Showtime has already ordered a second season. [Women and Hollywood]
• Blind Item: "Which top-selling artist purportedly had his new single cut from some radio stations playlists in retaliation for supporting royalties for musicians?" (The article goes on to say that it's probably Bono.) [USA Today]
• Bono and The Edge wrote the music and lyrics for the Broadway musical Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark, and Bono likens himself to a superhero, natch. [Rolling Stone]
• "Mommy breastfed all three of you. You guys took all my milk, so now mommy's just getting the milk put back inside." Real Housewives of New Jersey's Teresa Giudice's explanation to her daughters about her new buh-bees. Don't go putting silicone in your coffee, girls! [People]
• "I went through this stage where I would just go out, not be responsible, not focus on work or class, and my management was like, 'Listen, you could go either way. You could be this person - I won't name names - a reality show actress. Or you could go this way - award-winning actress.' That was a real shock." - Twilight's Ashley Greene doesn't want to be like Paris Hilton. [Nylon]
• "So many means of expression are being explored in TV through women who are fully mature, in the prime of their lives, feeling experienced and able to express who they are. We're not 21. It's really exciting, in that these opportunities are kind of unprecedented. Glenn Close, Kyra Sedgwick, Mary McCormick, Mary Louise Parker, a show like United States of Tara—women are exploring all kinds of new aspects of themselves." - Holly Hunter [HuffPo]
• "I like when she demonstrates how to transport a potted plant while wearing Hermes pants and uses enough packing material to move a whole house. But we're just moving one plant. Really you just put the plant in a truck and go." - Alexis Stewart on her mom Martha. [AP]
• "I probably won't watch [The Hills]. I'm not a huge TV person." - author Lauren Conrad. [E!]

• Last night, Sarah Palin ended up stopping by a Republican fundraiser that she was scheduled to headline, dropped out of and tried to get back into when her 2012 rival, Newt Gingrich, took her slot. [Washington Post]

• Newt Gingrich did plenty of talking, however, offering that he's "happy" Dick Cheney and Colin Powell are Republicans and that he thinks internal debates about policy and ideology should be saved until the party is in the majority again. You know, 'cause that worked so well for moderate Republicans before. [Associated Press]
• One place the GOP has asserted dominance is New York State, where two Democrats with legal problems (Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens) re-installed the Republican majority in the Senate. Espada is in line to become governor if David Paterson is incapacitated, so it worked out rather nicely for him, if not for the state's LGBT population. [NY Times]
• Former New York Senator Hillary Clinton has told Israel that since the Bush Administration didn't turn over any evidence of their so-called secret arrangement by which Israel would say it had stopped settlement expansion while expanding settlements, there is no such arrangement. [Washington Independent]
• Morgan Tsvangirai, the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe under a power-sharing arrangement with its dictator, Robert Mugabe, will visit with President Obama today. It'll be unseemly to be caught wishing for Mugabe to die already but... [Washington Post]
• South Korea has beaten us in imposing unilateral sanctions on North Korea for all the crazy shit Kim Jong Il's been pulling lately to prove that he hasn't had a stroke and is totally right in the head. [NY Times]
• Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's constituents have finally heard about all the crazy shit he says about being surrounded by light from Allah and whatnot, thanks to a political rival. Unsurprisingly, some people in Iran thinks he sounds batshit. [Huffington Post]
• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided to fuck over the Senate (retribution for all the times it has done the same to her?) and strip out Senator Joe Lieberman's provision that would prevent the release of the rest of the torture photos the ACLU wants. [Politico]
• The Supreme Court plans on reviewing the sale of Chrysler to Fiat, and Congress has decided to try to force Obama to force GM and Chrysler to keep dealerships open despite the fact that the car companies are shuttering entire automobile lines and the dealer networks are increasingly unpopular. You know what the dealers do have? Lots and lots and lots of money to lobby Congress, since they're not bankrupt. [The Hill]