The response to Jim Cooper's vote in favor of the Stupak Amendment - and his subsequent bewildering explanation of it - continues to pour in strongly, especially from women in his district. Here's a post by BaxterBlogs describing a letter to the editor she sent the Congressman:

Oh, one more thing Jim: I have a lot of friends who listen to me. Many women as a matter of fact. But then what do you care? You don't care much for women anyway. Their vote apparently doesn't count. In case you thought I was the only one feeling this way, here is a great Blog Post by Mary Mancini: http://www.liberadio.com/2009/11/09/an-open-letter-to-jim-cooper-asks-why/ . She is a lot nicer than I am. She writes better than I do. She has even more friends than I do. And the best part, she has a vibrant radio show and active blog. You have upset the wrong people Jim. We aren't barefoot in the kitchen anymore. Did you forget that?

As for your re-election Jim: Good Luck With That!

Here's the post referenced above by Mary Mancini of Liberadio:

And, might I add, the Stupak Amendment will do absolutely nothing to reduce the number of abortions in the United States. It will, however, take away a potential life-saving treatment for more than half the population of the country. If legislators truly wanted to curtail the number of abortions in the US, they would work on curtailing the number of unintended pregnancies by increasing federal funding for comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education in the classroom and through public and private health agencies...

According to Cooper’s office, and confirmed by Marcus’s analysis, it was either the Stupak amendment or no passage of the bill. Cooper’s choice is understandable. What’s sad - and what I most hate about this game - is that he was forced to make it.

In fact, Cooper's excuse that passing the Stupak Amendment was necessary to ensure passage of the bill is one that has been completely debunked... by none other than Rep. Stupak himself before the vote took place:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) told reporters that regardless of the outcome of the vote on his amendment, which would severely restrict coverage of reproductive health issues, the House health care bill is headed for passage.

Diarist lobbygow at Daily Kos has the details, via OFA Tennessee:

I just received this enthusiastic invitation in my e-mail box:

"We just found out that Rep. Jim Cooper will be coming home from D.C. this evening, and he'll be arriving at the Nashville Airport around 5:30 p.m.

Rep. Cooper is a strong supporter of health insurance reform, and we want to make sure he gets a warm welcome to show we appreciate his hard work."

Given that Jim is one of the Dems on the list of those that voted to restrict a woman's reproductive rights, I think it would be great if those living in the Nashville area would give Jim just the kind of welcome he deserves!

WHAT: Jim Cooper Welcoming Party
WHEN: Tonight from 5:30 - 6:30
WHERE:Metropolitan Nashville Airport One Terminal Drive
Assemble at the base of the escalator between baggage claim 2 and 3

Big Tent Dem at TalkLeft writes a short memo on the correct usage of the grammatical person to Rep. Cooper:

[EZRA KLEIN:] The argument over Stupak’s amendment was striking for how effectively it evaded questions of choice and focused on the Hyde amendment. They narrowed that debate very sharply.

[JIM COOPER:] They won the argument that their amendment was the continuation of current law.

(Emphasis supplied.) "They" must have held a gun to Jim Cooper's head when he voted FOR "their" amendment. Cooper appears to be part of the anti-choice majority that "they" say exists.

Jim Cooper defended his vote in favor of the Stupak amendment restricting women's reproductive rights on Hardball on MSNBC tonight:

Cooper also sat down with Ezra Klein of the Washington Post to attempt to defend his vote, and described the approval of the Stupak Amendment as "the way education works in a democracy":

The argument over Stupak’s amendment was striking for how effectively it evaded questions of choice and focused on the Hyde amendment. They narrowed that debate very sharply.

They won the argument that their amendment was the continuation of current law. It shows how popular the status quo is. That’s the major problem health-care reform has always had. People prefer the devil they know. The default position is usually to do nothing.

But the debate is a continuing education process. Before the Stupak amendment, many of my friends had not realized that the government gives a $250 billion annual subsidy to employer-sponsored health care. If you understand today’s system, the Hyde amendment bans direct subsidies of abortion. It does not ban indirect subsidies of abortion, in particular the $250 billion that goes to employer-based health care. The bishops never noticed that. But this is the way education works in a democracy. It’s not easy or simple. But when people begin making decisions, they learn about lots of things they never noticed before.

GoldnI is still not at all satisfied with Cooper's evolving defense of his vote:

Ignoring the really condescending tone of that paragraph, that's still a bullshit reason. Now, I know that Cooper opposes subsidies to employer-based healthcare. But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether or not private insurance companies offering individual plans within an exchange can still offer coverage for one item that they generally already cover. Not everyone within this exchange is going to receive subsidies from the government, but if even one person receives $1 in subsidies, then the plan they're enrolled in would have to deny reproductive health coverage to everyone, even to those not receiving subsidies.

If everyone was so opposed to these "indirect subsidies" to abortion through employer-based healthcare, then why has there never been any serious attempt to cut if off before, even when the Republicans were in power? Why is there no serious effort to stop it now? What would be the substantive difference between that and what they're proposing in the future exchange? Why has Cooper never couched this argument in these terms before, that the problem is not employer-based healthcare or an insurance exchange themselves but the fact that it could remotely cover this one thing? He's always framed it in terms of the former rather than the latter.

And concludes:

Jim Cooper, you are NOT off the hook by any means.

Jim Cooper's votes over the weekend on the House health care bill and on an amendment restricting reproductive rights continue to receive strong reaction both locally and nationally:

• GoldnI blasts Cooper for his vote on the Stupak amendment:

  It's been 24 hours since the historic vote to pass healthcare reform with a public option in the House, so I've had a little bit of time to let it all sink in. And after all that, I'm not mollified by Congressman Cooper's decision to vote for the bill.

  In fact, I'm furious over his vote for the extreme and unnecessary anti-choice Stupak amendment, stating that private insurance companies participating in a future health insurance exchange may not offer abortion as part of a basic package, even if a woman pays for the policy with her own money and even though 85% of private insurance companies currently do cover it. Cooper's vote makes absolutely no sense.

  ...As the December recess approaches, when the Congressmen will be making a new round of appearances throughout their districts, the Democratic women of the Fifth District who have loyally supported Cooper for so long need grill him on this question and hold him accountable for selling our rights out for a bill he didn't even support that much to begin with!

• The Wall St. Journal reports that Cooper may have given Democratic leadership his vote, even while opposing the language of the bill, because he received assurances that a tax on health care benefits for middle-class workers would be in the final legislation:

  Reps. Kurt Schrader, a freshman from Oregon, Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Melissa Bean of Illinois weren't convinced that the bill's cost -- at more than $1 trillion -- would be covered by spending cuts and tax increases, as predicted by the Congressional Budget Office. They pressed leaders for assurance that final negotiations with the Senate would yield a tax that House leaders hadn't been willing to accept -- a levy on high-cost insurance plans. Negotiators ultimately conceded that a final deal likely would.

• A letter to the editor from a Cooper constituent in the Tennessean takes Jim Cooper and the Blue Dogs to task on health care:

  Blue Dog Democrats in Congress keep howling about health-care reform and the cost that will be incurred should this historic legislation become the law of the land just like Social Security and Medicare.

  It's laughable when one stops to think about all the perks members of Congress and their families generate health-care-wise by simply being an employee of the United States government....

  You don't have to give us everything, congressional Blue Dogs, just throw us a soup bone or two and let us have the option of deciding if we, too, want to participate in your never-ending gold circle health-care program.

  We are tired of just getting your hand-me-down fleas.

• The far-right CATO Institute notes Cooper's disgust for the very House bill he just voted yea on:

  Even a majority vote would not necessarily indicate majority support for the Pelosi bill. Rep. Jim Cooper (TN) and other Democrats are voting aye only because they want to keep the process moving – i.e., because this isn’t the vote that counts.

After committing to vote last night for the House health care bill only because he assumed it wouldn't become law, Jim Cooper then decided to join Republicans in voting for the Stupak amendment restricting a woman's right to choose.

Egalia blogs:

The Stupak Amendment -- "a dramatic departure from current law which would restrict a women's right to choose" -- passed 240 to 194. Private insurance companies will have to drop the abortion coverage that they currently offer. Sixty-four (64) Democrats voted for the draconian measure. Here are the traitors' names. (Roll Call)

Oh looky, my dying-to-be-primaried Congressman Jim Cooper is one of the 64 Dems who voted to throw women's rights under the bus. As Rayne over at Firedoglake observes: 64 Dems just asked for primary opponents.

GoldnI tweets:

Just noticed that Jim Cooper was a "Yes" vote on the Stupak amendment. What the hell? Really not cool.

Cooper admits in a statement on health care on his House website that federal law already ensures that there can be no federal funding of abortion:

Q: I've heard that the government will fund abortions. Is this true?

A: No. Current law, through a provision known as the Hyde amendment, states that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions. I do not think Congress will change current law.

But that didn't go far enough for Cooper, who just voted to strip women in his district of their already existing coverage:

A central promise of health care reform is that if you like the health care coverage you have, you can keep it. Today in America, millions of women who buy health care on their own or who get it through the small business employer have abortion care coverage. Congressman Stupak's amendment would strip them of that coverage, breaking that central promise.

Here is a list local elected officials who signed an open letter to Jim Cooper, delivered by Change That Works Tennessee last night, demanding that he vote for the House health care bill (full text of letter at link above):

Legislature Signers:
Rep. Joe Armstrong – Chair of Health and Human Resources Committee
Rep. Mike Turner – Chair of House Dem Caucus
Rep. Gary Odom – House Democratic Leader
Rep. Sherry Jones
Rep. Mike Stewart
Rep. Mary Pruitt

Nashville City Council Signers
Megan Barry – Member at Large
Lonnell Matthews – District 1
Frank Harrison – District 2
Walter Hunt – District 3
Pam Murray – District 5
Mike Jameson – District 6
Erik Cole – District 7
Darren Jernigan – District 11
Anna Page – District 16
Kristine LaLonde – District 18
Erica Gilmore –District 19
Buddy Baker – District 20
Vivian Wilhoite – District 29
Parker Toler – District 31

GoldnI calls this type of move "unprecedented":

All of the Democrats from Nashville in the House (even Mike Turner, wow!) and quite a few Council members--notably, just about all of the African-American members. Cooper does not normally get this kind of explicit statement from the Nashville electeds, so this is quite unprecedented. They're sending a message for sure.

Jeff Woods reacts to the news that Jim Cooper will vote for the House health care bill, only because it won't become law:

We'll never know whether all the threats from Daily Kos and the rest of the liberal blogosphere motivated Cooper, but you certainly can make that case.

Here's a guy who's always stubbornly claiming to stand on principle--who will vote even against fixing a leaky Tennessee dam just because he's against earmarks, for instance--and he's suddenly deciding he actually can bring himself to compromise. For Cooper, that's weird. Do you think he's doing it because he knows there's a bunch of liberals willing to fund a challenger if he votes against the wishes of his constituents on this important issue?

Dru's Vues has Jim Cooper's official statement on his health care vote, where he appears to admit voting for it only because he feels strongly it won't actually become law:

“I am grateful to the thousands of Nashville-area residents who have shared their opinion on health care reform with me. Everyone feels strongly because health care is so important to our lives. Having read the pending bills and having taught health policy at Vanderbilt business school for twelve years, I have made the following decision:

I will vote yes on H.R. 3962. My vote is not an endorsement of all the provisions of the bill because I find much of the bill to be deeply flawed. There is little chance that H.R. 3962 will become law due to the long legislative process.

My reason for voting yes is to advance the cause of health care reform by forcing the Senate to act. Without passage of this House bill, the Senate could delay reform indefinitely. That would be the worst possible outcome because our current health-care system is not sustainable. Congress needs to pass good health legislation in the next few months for the good of the country.

Passing legislation is a little like writing a term paper in school. The first draft is usually not very good. The second draft is better -- H.R. 3962 is the second draft. The bill that the Senate will vote on will be the third draft, which I expect to show major improvement. The final draft will be written next month when the House and the Senate vote on the same bill. I will continue to work hard to make sure that the final legislation helps all of our families get quality, affordable health care.”

Cooper fought hard over the past few months to stall the process, to ensure that a robust public option was not included in the bill, and to ensure that the same corporate for-profit health care industry forces that fund his campaigns would be able to write the bill themselves with minimal input from Congress itself.

Even so, multiple members of Cooper's Blue Dog Coalition have indicated they will vote no on the bill. Cooper himself went on CBS' Face the Nation in July to say loudly that he would vote against the previous House language. So what changed?

In late August, a poll came out showing that Cooper's Democratic constituents in TN-05 strongly disapproved of his positions on health care. He fired back indignantly calling the pollster biased. In late September, Cooper Uncovered launched, and serious talk of a primary challenge increased. Cooper fired back indignantly, saying he wasn't worried.

By attempting with this vote to paper over his previous work to kill meaningful health care reform this year just like he did in 1994, Cooper is responding to the pressure being brought on him by progressive Democrats in Nashville and across the country.

Update: Jeff Woods:

We'll never know whether all the threats from Daily Kos and the rest of the liberal blogosphere motivated Cooper, but you certainly can make that case.

Here's a guy who's always stubbornly claiming to stand on principle--who will vote even against fixing a leaky Tennessee dam just because he's against earmarks, for instance--and he's suddenly deciding he actually can bring himself to compromise. For Cooper, that's weird. Do you think he's doing it because he knows there's a bunch of liberals willing to fund a challenger if he votes against the wishes of his constituents on this important issue?

A letter to the editor in the Nashville City Paper from a Cooper Voter: (via @doobee0810 on Twitter):

Rep. Cooper, a man I proudly support with my vote, was wrong about the [Americans with Disabilities Act]. Since its enactment (and its recent amendments), although flawed like many laws, it has been universally lauded on both sides of the aisle as a powerful and effective expression of our country’s commitment to the equality, dignity and freedom of each American.

Which brings us to today’s health insurance reform debate. It’s unclear, but Cooper at least seems poised to vote against any bill he has not drafted and considers flawed. This in the face of millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans, rising health care costs for everyone and repeated practices of persons denied care when they get sick.

Cooper was one of just 20 members of Congress - including Tom DeLay and Dick Armey - to vote against the ADA in 1990.