Poor Bart Stupak. The man tried to be a hero for the unborn, and then, when all the power of the moment was in his frail human hands, he dropped the baby. He genuflected when he should have dug in his heels and gave it up for a meaningless executive order.
Now, in the wake of his decision to vote for a health-care bill that expands public funding for abortion, he is vilified and will forever be remembered as the guy who Stupaked health-care reform and the pro-life movement….
Stupak, too, knew that the executive order was merely political cover for him and his pro-life colleagues. He knew it because several members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops explained it to him, according to sources. The only way to prevent public funding for abortion was for his amendment to be added to the Senate bill.
Clearly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the president didn’t want that. What they did want was the abortion funding that the Senate bill allowed.
Thus, the health-care bill passed because of a mutually understood deception — a pretense masquerading as virtue. No wonder Stupak locked his doors and turned off his phones on Sunday, according to several pro-life lobbyists who camped outside his office.
I found this comment over at SF interesting:
[blockquote]
Duped? Not hardly.
Stupak’s a longtime Capitol Hill veteran, and he knew d*&% well the executive order was useless before he agreed to it. He was never pro-life to begin with, and the evidence was there for anyone to see. His NRLC rating has long been mediocre – he once voted against defunding Planned Parenthood by absurdly claiming that they don’t perform abortions. He only ever seemed pro-life because the rest of his party was so extremist.
If Stupak-ed comes to mean anything, it should be ‘done in by a fifth column’
[/blockquote]
I, like probably many others, had made the assumption that Stupak was solidly pro-life. The comment inspired me to check out the National Right to Life Website and Mr. Stupak’s rating – [url=http://nrlc.www.capwiz.com/bio/id/312 ]it’s only 65% for his entire time in Congress[/url] and the ratings for the 111th Congress votes is only 40%. Here are the true pro-life democrats: Bobby Bright (D-AL), Jim Marshal (D-GA, Charlie Melancon (D-LA), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Dan Boren (D-OK), Lincoln Davis (D-TN) – all with a 100% score for the 111th Congress. Check out the ratings page [url=http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard.xc?chamber=H&state=US&session=111&x=8&y=14 ]here[/url]. One sees there are 100’s of perfect 0% Democrats. There are lots of 100% Republicans. I couldn’t find any 0% Republicans.
Would it have been so bad to be assigned by Pelosi as a junior member to the Bovine Flatulence Committee and lose all financial support from the national Democratic party? I imagine Pelosi’s revenge might have been a very effective campaigning and fund raising tactic. I would love to be a fly on the wall the next time Bart goes to confession.
I’m not questioning this, just asking for clarification – where does the current bill “expand public funding for abortion”?
Is that being said because people are getting subsidies to pay for insurance coverage that may cover abortion procedures? That’s my guess but I haven’t seen it spelled out.
Hey Rob Roy — good research there.
Did any of the “true pro-life Democrats” vote for this health [sic] care [sic] reform [sic] bill?
Think that’ll provide cover in other situations? “Well, I’ve been stupaked.” I doubt it. Though it provides an alternative to “quisling” for post-modern times, I suppose.
I have asked this before and never gotten an answer. What has happened to the party of John Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage”? Where is the one man or woman who will stand up against all adversity and say “no more”. This is why I have NO sympathy for Evan Bayh (and even less for Stupidpak). If Bayh so hates the atmosphere in DC, he could have go a long way toward changing it on Christmas Eve by simply saying “no more”. And had he done so, the people of Indiana would have carried him down Meridian Avenue in a sedan chair.
Not sure I yet understand this issue. If the Executive Order was meaningless, why did the President not bring the media and others into the room for the signing? Mr. Obama is such a politician, that I would think if he knew he had the upper hand, he would make the most of the opportunity.
I’m not so sure it’s toothless, although I do understand the argument that Executive Orders are not of the same type as legislation. Anyway, still waiting for a good explanation. Any suggestions as to articles or posts that clearly and succinctly explain why this Executive Order does not protect the unborn as advertised?
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. John’s Anglican
Park City UT
7, because if the law allows it, an Executive order can’t repeal it. So far our President’s can’t rule by decree.
And #7, because even if the EO could prevent the enforcement of the law, it can be withdrawn at any time by BHO or any Prez to follow him – just as BHO withdrew many of W’s EOs within a few hours of his taking office.
For those looking at the pro-life Dems, and in answer to your question Sarah, I know Jim Marshall, the Dem. from Macon, GA, listed in #1. He is a moderate through and through and a good honest courageous man. He voted against the health care bill, and stated he would do that for months leading up to it. Pray for him, for he could be qualified for a “profile in courage” award.
The president did not bring anyone into the room to photograph the signing because NARAL and PP are upset that he even had to sign this unenforceable, meaningless piece of paper (EOs cannot trump legislation and can be rescinded at any time). Everyone knows that it has no teeth, yet even the appearance (not the reality) of acknowledging anything pro-life has those who advocate abortion (who give mega bucks to the Democrats) wailing about losing a “woman’s right to choose.” It’s all about campaign contributions for the fall – and Pres. Obama is trying not to alienate supporters.
So no one can tell me how the bill provides funding for abortions?
Scott K,
Guess that’s the same question I’m asking.
Darin+
Scott K, the bill requires that one of the insurance options in the “exchange” be one that does not pay for elective abortion. All the other options, therefore, will cover elective abortion. The bill provides, I think, an extra $1 charge that must be paid separately for abortion coverage, and claims that this money is “segregated” and therefore no public money actually pays for the abortions. Money is fungible, though; the insurance plans will be subsidized via the under-$88K income subsidy, and essentially people will have to “opt out” of plans that pay for abortions if they don’t want to be involved. Instead of a prohibition on this procedure being paid for in subsidized plans, as in the current Medicaid prohibition, we have all but one which will cover it.
As to the executive order, I have read it, and it seems to be a bunch of talk about reminding people of the current HHS provisions. It has no force of law, and since the actual new law does not prohibit abortion coverage, this executive order has no effect. The law always trumps the EO where there is a direct conflict.
Bobby Bright (D-AL) – No on Obamacare
Jim Marshal (D-GA) – Yes
Charlie Melancon (D-LA) – No
Collin Peterson (D-MN) – Yes
Mike McIntyre (D-NC) – No
Dan Boren (D-OK) – No
Lincoln Davis (D-TN) – Yes
#7 and 8–Its more than that. Roe v. Wade says abortion is a fundamental constitutional right. (Please note I do not think Roe was a prudent decision or that abortion ought to be a constitutional right, but that’s what they said). The president can’t rescind a fundamental constitutional right by fiat. If he could, he could suspend Miranda rights, right to equal access to public schools and other such rights created by the Court. He could even possibly get rid of enumerated rights.
So people who are receiving subsidies and elect a health care plan that provides abortion coverage are required to pay for that piece of coverage separately out of their own pocket?
I’m pro-life but I don’t think this would have been worth killing the whole bill over, particularly since the expansion of coverage in general should reduce the overall abortion rate across the board.
Bravo, robroy (#1 & 15).
I agree with Sarah. That’s tremendous research, my friend. I’m glad to know who the real good guys are. Thanks for setting the record straight.
David Handy+
So proud of the President of the elite NRAFC
Katherine,
Thanks for the explanation.
Darin+
Theoretically, Scott K, but it’s a fig leaf. Money is fungible. The government will be subsidizing plans which will abort babies. Further, I doubt very much that the expansion of coverage will reduce the abortion rate. They’d like you to think that, but I will be astonished if it has that effect.
From the RC bishops:
Grrrrr – RC link here
Something else here, too: What is the difference between an [b]elective[/b] abortion and a [b]non-elective[/b] abortion?
I know a miscarriage is sometimes [i]termed[/i] and abortion but what does insurance pay for such an event? True, there may be payment for the follow-up but NOT for the miscarriage.
Abortion aside, as important as it is, is not the story people. The story here is that Supak had given his word to a whole lot of people that he would not vote for this bill. Then he did. The man is a coward and a cheat. And he has a place of leadership in our country. That is the travesty.
bl
I believe a miscarriage is called “spontaneous abortion” medically, but it’s not something the doctor does. “Non-elective abortion” generally refers to rape, incest, and immediate threat to the life of the mother, for instance, an ectopic pregnancy. Many such as the RC bishops would consider some of these objectionable as well; however, these are a very, very small proportion of the abortion procedures performed in the US.
An elective abortion is a pregnancy termination chosen by the mother without medical cause on either maternal or embryonic/fetal considerations.
A non-elective abortion is an abortion to save the life of the mother due to threat to maternal life.
A discussion of the Roman Catholic position is found here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.
However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:
* That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
* That the immediate effect be good in itself;
* That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;
* That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.
All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother’s life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother’s life is in itself as good as the saving of the child’s life.
Of course, health care itself will reduce the number of abortions because there will be greater opportunities for women to have health care for themselves and their children.
RE: “Of course, health care itself will reduce the number of abortions because there will be greater opportunities for women to have health care for themselves and their children.”
And of course, that is not true as the vast vast vast majority of women who have abortions do not do so because of “fears” of lack of health care for themselves or their “children.” So the fact that there is “health care” [sic] is irrelevant to most women’s abortions.
RobRoy, #15 — great work and thank you.
So there are a total of four pro-life Democrats in the House. Out of 253. That’s approximately 1.5%.
That’s . . . good to know . . .
Sarah, you are right that most women do not have abortions because of the lack of health care for themselves or their children. Most have abortions because they don’t think they can take care of their children if they have them.
However, [url=http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/18/massachusetts-study-health-care-reform-could-reduce-abortions/]research concerning Massachusetts[/url], one of the more liberal states regarding abortion, seems to indicate that there is some correlation between universal health care and abortion rates. They clearly didn’t go up. It’s a small percentage, perhaps, but noticeable, and makes economic sense. Some women are more likely to keep a baby to term if they have financial support. Health care is a kind of support.
The article ends with a quote by Cardinal Hume. Who’s a Catholic. [i]”If that frightened, unemployed 19-year-old knows that she and her child will have access to medical care whenever it’s needed,” Hume explained, “she’s more likely to carry the baby to term. Isn’t it obvious?”[/i]
Hume may be wrong. But I wonder why places in Europe where there is access to all forms of birth control – and much less expensive – there are far fewer abortions. Health care may be a part of it. Perhaps 10% of it. But how much is reducing abortions worth? Clearly not enough for some to reconsider a comprehensive and affordable health care for all.
What is also true is that making abortions illegal may not, however, reduce abortions. It just criminalizes women and doctors. And would make lots of people feel better about their personal moral piety, while doing little to actually change the situation.
So, John, you as much as admit that increased federal funding for abortions won’t directly translate into fewer abortions. Only that, in your hopeful progressive scenario, this move towards universal access will somehow do so.
But it still allows for greater [b]federal[/b] monies to be used for elective abortions. Which means more taxpayer dollars. Despite the 30+ year precedent of the Hyde Amendment, and the sentiment of a substantial majority of Americans.
I’d also note that nothing in the Hyde Amendment, or any of the above comments, raises the cry that abortions be criminalized. In fact, even if Roe v. Wade were struck down tomorrow (which David Keller, and I, and many others, including a number of legal scholars, would welcome), it would not “criminalize” elective abortion. It would simply throw the issue back to the states.
Lastly, by Stupak’s own account, some Democrats told him that they regarded inclusion of abortion funding as a way of lowering healthcare costs through fewer children to have to pay for after birth. But, that’s just consistent with Margaret Sanger’s well-documented sentiments towards the poor. Enjoy your “reform.”
My point is that the bill makes it easier for women to choose NOT to have abortions. It’s an unintended consequence, but a sure one. Especially if you look at the evidence.
Actually, I think having the states decide about abortion rights would, in fact, be a good thing.
I am delighted to have something about which to agree with John Wilkins, #31. Repealing Roe v. Wade would have the effect of returning the question of the legal status of abortions to the states.
And Kathleen Parker has followed this original piece by another one today: