Well, that’s it. Stupak and the other fictional pro-life Democrats, using the cover of a worthless Executive Order, are voting for Health-care and federally funded abortion.
I am heartbroken. Heartbroken for the lives of children that will be lost. Heartbroken that my generation was unable to bequeath to our children the liberty we inherited. I am sorry. I am heartbroken and ashamed that I ever believed in Bart Stupak and the others.
May God have mercy on the United States.
Know these things.
There is no such thing as a pro-life Democrat. I don’t ever want to hear such nonsense again. They are the Party of Death, no exceptions.
This fight is not over.
March 22, 2010 at 2:26 am
Okay, Stupak has taken a lot of crap over this stand-off so I think he was and is sincere about protecting life. He also has opposed ESCR. Look on his website and you will see that he even wrote an essay defending that view. Opposing ESCR doesn’t win him any votes or friends, yet he opposes it. Many pro-life people caved on that issue. So you have to give him credit.
Yes, I think that accepting the executive order is risky and demonstrates gullibility on Stupak’s part. But consider this: the courts consider the intent of the the lawmakers. And, Obama and Pelosi have stated repeatedly that the intent is to not fund abortions. Though they may not be sincere, they said it, and the courts should take that into account. No such intent was evident when medicaid was passed, thus necessitating the Hyde Amndment to preclude a liberal court interpretation.
I will probably hold my nose and vote for Stupak in Nov, just to reward him. (The Republican doesn't stand a chance in this pro-gun, pro-life , and especially pro-Union district.
mark in da up
March 22, 2010 at 2:33 am
Offer it all to the Lord and remain in peace.
March 22, 2010 at 2:38 am
We'll find out if the Executive Order is legit and without loopholes in a day or so if we hear outrage from Plan Parenthood.
Joe K
March 22, 2010 at 3:13 am
Well, I guess we can pray that this Executive Order will bridge where this bill fails. I remain dubious however. Obama promised a conscience clause to replace the one from Bush he repealed.
Now that it is a done deal, he doesn't need to keep his promise of course and this is what I fear will happen.
I would rather be proven wrong of course.
Whether Stupak was sincere or not. Whether he was deluded or not, time will tell.
God help us all.
March 22, 2010 at 3:25 am
I agree with Anon. 10:33. Offer up your day, your struggles, your joys and sufferings to this cause, to the pro-life movement, to the Catholic Church, to the politicians on both sides of this.
Unite your suffering to Christ's passion.
If you're interested in reading a very powerful statement (a good one especially for a Lenten meditation), read "Salvifici Doloris"/ "On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering"
March 22, 2010 at 3:31 am
Please. Anyone who honestly believes in the, "Don't worry, we'll just keep approving your concerns forever," is so ignorant of history, human nature, and politics, that they deserve scorn. Both Stupak and the wimpy Catholics defending him on this blog tonight.
March 22, 2010 at 3:31 am
"Many pro-life people caved on that issue. So you have to give him credit." Read that again. Judas held up for three years, so you gotta give him credit, I suppose.
"But consider this: the courts consider the intent of the the lawmakers." I'm not sure where you went to law school, but the courts consider what is written in the bill that passed into law (not the politics leading up to it) and the (supposed) Constitutionality of the various parts of the law. If you are thinking of promissory estoppel, that is contract law, not legislative process.
March 22, 2010 at 3:33 am
"Selling out" would mean giving away his vote for a dam project or some other slushola for his district (like say Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieux).
Stupak will be getting $700,000+ to improve three regional airports in his district. That was announced on Friday.
From Bart Stupak's site
So much for that argument. He was bought off. And the Susan B Anthony List is stripping him of an award he was to receive next week.
from Hot Air
March 22, 2010 at 3:47 am
What to do now? I will graduate from college in a year and will have to pay taxes. I am uncomfortable having my tax dollars, however few, fund abortions. Should I withhold my taxes?
March 22, 2010 at 4:00 am
This from Planned Parenthood's website:
“Nonetheless, we regret that a pro-choice president of a pro-choice nation was forced to sign an Executive Order that further codifies the proposed anti-choice language in the health care reform bill, originally proposed by Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. What the president’s executive order did not do is include the complete and total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion that Congressman Bart Stupak (D–MI) had insisted upon. So while we regret that this proposed Executive Order has given the imprimatur of the president to Senator Nelson’s language, it is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban.
March 22, 2010 at 4:17 am
Bart Stupak met with Barry Obama and afterward came out and said no deal yet. then on March 19th, a couple days ago, there was this press release by Stupak. so we had cash for clunkers. Now we see cash for dead infants and Stupak is the buyer. Barry gives cover with executive order that means nothing.
STUPAK ANNOUNCES $726,409 FOR AIRPORTS IN ALPENA, DELTA AND CHIPPEWA COUNTIES
WASHINGTON, DC – March 19 for immediate release
U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) announced three airports in northern Michigan have received grants totaling $726,409 for airport maintenance and improvements. The funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration.
“This federal funding will help these airports better provide critical services to communities in northern Michigan,” Stupak said. “I am pleased the FAA has made this investment in our local airports and the individuals and businesses they serve.”
Alpena County Regional Airport received a grant of $85,500 to acquire friction measuring equipment, specifically a decelermeter and tow vehicle, to replace equipment that has worn out.
Delta County Airport in Escanaba received a grant of $179,209 to install a 10 foot perimeter fence to enhance security and prevent wildlife from entering the airport.
The Chippewa County International Airport near Sault Ste. Marie received a grant of $461,700 to install lighted signs on Runway 16/34 and make repairs to the pavement to meet marking requirements and maintain structural integrity.
March 22, 2010 at 4:28 am
Siobhan — and like-minded posters who think Stupak remains pro-life: did you catch Stupak’s floor speech before the vote on the “motion to recommit” (that would essentially have forced the House to start over on this bill)? The one where he attacked pro-lifers supporting the motion as being against the lives of all the thousands of people without health insurance, while Democrats (without qualification) are the true pro-lifers who care for everyone? That speech doesn’t leave us the option of thinking (as many of us had hoped) that Stupak was just taken-in by a bad promise by Obama. He reverted to true pro-abortion Democrat form, without apology or reasonable explanation. I don’t live in MI, but I truly hope — for the good of our nation and our souls — that all the supposedly pro-life Dems who voted for this thing get voted out!
March 22, 2010 at 4:39 am
I'm reading it now, and reading about the airport deal, and I am heartsick. I agree with Lori, we NEED pro-life Democrats to outlaw abortion. And I was sure that Bart Stupak was a true pro-life Democrat who would not sacrifice his integrity, and the lives of the unborn, for a handful of silver. The whole concept of honorable behavior has vanished in this country. When did that happen?
~Siobhan
March 22, 2010 at 4:54 am
I didn't hear the speech but I too am sickened by his acceptance of what looks like a bribe. But I still say we need more pro-life Democrats. If we had more, Stupak and his coalition wouldn't have felt so isolated — they might have held out, they might have won. Any true effectiveness in politics takes a bipartisan approach. That means we need pro-lifers on both sides. The Republican pro-life side is ignoring this to their peril.
March 22, 2010 at 7:04 am
according to the vote count "19 pro-life Democrats voted against the Senate bill and for the resolution to recommit" (that is, introduce the Stupak amendment again).
http://www.jillstanek.com/healthcare-bill-democrat-pro-l.html
19 pro-life Democrats did hold out to the end.
March 22, 2010 at 7:19 am
oops, 4 other Democrats voted against the bill while voting against the motion to recommit.
March 22, 2010 at 12:54 pm
To Lori Pieper and Siobhan:
First, Obama is not simply politician but is also an ideologue. He is an avid supporter of abortion, and never intends to abandon his support or desire to expand its reach. He has proven that repeatedly in words and deeds. If he makes a political calculation it will not be to abandon his pro-abort position but to disemble and disguise it and use soothing language. The actions he takes will never change.Plain and simply Stupak caved, he is no Thomas More, because More died for his faith. The EO is meaningless, it can not contradict and override the legislation, it has no authoritative power. Stupak knew that as would any legislator, that says nothing good about his deal and may point to merely attempt to fool and assuage the pro-life or nominally involved pro-life advocate. I wish him no ill, but he caved!!!!!!!!1
March 22, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Note: American Papist pointed out the USCCB analysis on the Executive Order.
“One proposal to address the serious problem in the Senate health care bill on abortion funding, specifically the direct appropriating of new funds that bypass the Hyde amendment, is to have the President issue an executive order against using these funds for abortion. Unfortunately, this proposal does not begin to address the problem, which arises from decades of federal appellate rulings that apply the principles of Roe v. Wade to federal health legislation. According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding. That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year. The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unamimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation.”
March 22, 2010 at 1:33 pm
I don't believe those Dems who voted no are truly pro-life. The party allowed them to do so to save their seats; after Stupak's defection the Dems can afford to let a few do that. But I don't buy it.
March 22, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Et tu Barte?