Unsure about whether the Stupak deal for an Executive Order was a good one or just meaningless political cover? Here is all you need to know. Senators Ben Nelson and Bob Casey think it was a splendid idea.
National Review
Sen. Robert Casey (D., Pa.), an abortion critic, tells NRO that President Obama’s decision to issue an executive order on abortion in order to win the vote of pro-life House Democrats was “a dramatic development” that “strengthens” Obamacare’s support for life. “We can debate whether it was necessary, in light of what we did in the Senate bill (on abortion), which I thought was very strong, but if this helps to clarify things, then all the better.” The Democratic party, he adds, “always will, and should be strong enough” to welcome pro-life politicians into its ranks.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.), the last holdout over the Senate health-care bill’s abortion language, tells NRO that he sees Stupak’s executive order as something “made in good faith, at the very least” but “unnecessary.” He adds that he would “absolutely” be comfortable if it was never issued, since he believes the Senate’s language is enough. “It is a good faith showing by the administration that it doesn’t plan to change. That’s helpful.”
Snakes of a feather and all that. Yes, the Senate language was strong enough even though every abortion organization in the country is thrilled with it and have even been caught on video acknowledging that it merely an accounting scheme that does not to stop federally funded abortions.
The Executive Order is an Execution Order cosigned by Stupak, Nelson, and Casey.
We will remember.
March 23, 2010 at 12:37 pm
This is the comment I made when you first posted about the executive order:
"The executive order approach could end up being a double victory for Obama. I suspect he knows the executive order will not stand up in court and in the end he will get the health care bill with abortion funding. He will also get something else, the ability to run as pro-life in 2012 by pointing to the executive order. If this bill gets passed, I hope it's without the executive order."
https://creativeminorityreport.com/2010/03/you-shall-not-pass.html
Unfortunately, it looks like I was right.
March 23, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Abp. Chaput stresses the bishops' rejection of the Executive Order as well "Second, the Executive Order promised by the White House to ban the use of federal funds for abortion does not solve the many problems with the bill, which is why the bishops did not — and still do not – see it as a real solution. Executive Orders can be rescinded or reinterpreted at any time. …"
And he points out the role of fake Catholics in Obamacare , "Fourth, self-described “Catholic” groups have done a serious disservice to justice, to the Church, and to the ethical needs of the American people by undercutting the leadership and witness of their own bishops. For groups like Catholics United, this is unsurprising. In their effect, if not in formal intent, such groups exist to advance the interests of a particular political spectrum. Nor is it newsworthy from an organization like Network, which – whatever the nature of its good work — has rarely shown much enthusiasm for a definition of “social justice” that includes the rights of the unborn child. "
More on his site http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3631
March 23, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Don't forget to add CHA to the list of fake Catholic Groups. CHA (Sr. Carol Keehan) was given props by Nancy Pelosi right in the House after the bill passed.
CHA=Fake Catholic Health Assn. Paycheck=850K
For-profit organization. No more Catholic than my cat. Used for cover by administration and Democrats. Obama has found a way to further divide and conquer the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
March 23, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Abp. Chaput mentions CHA, "But the actions of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) in providing a deliberate public counter-message to the bishops were both surprising and profoundly disappointing; and also genuinely damaging. In the crucial final days of debate on health-care legislation, CHA lobbyists worked directly against the efforts of the American bishops in their approach to members of Congress. The bad law we now likely face, we owe in part to the efforts of the Catholic Health Association and similar “Catholic” organizations."
My 2 cents. This is our Church, not pro-abort nuns, pedophile priests or liberal bishops. We should criticize and call out the Judases lest they mislead the faithful. True charity consists in protecting the flock and preventing an expansion of the holocaust against the unborn.
March 23, 2010 at 1:26 pm
True charity does not only go part of the distance. I have heard many people talk about well, it will do some good. We do not want a 90% faithful spouse, we want a completely 100% faithful one. We do not want a room painted only 90%, we want the whole room done.
The perfect is not the enemy of the good, the perfect is good. This bill is neither perfect nor good. We cannot support this just because the government gets things done and the trains run on time.
This bill drafts every person who pays taxes into the pro-choice camp. It requires we abeit evil by rendering unto Ceasar. It holds out the pernicious hope (not unreasonably) to errode the personal will of pro-lifers to fight this evil by making them collaborators in the act via their mere writing of a check.
March 23, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Look, I was against this bill for political reasons (bigger government). I wanted the Stupak language included because I feel like the government already doesn’t follow the rules when it comes to federally funded abortions. But after all the events of the past few days, I'm confused about a couple of things. So I'm going to post my understanding of the situation and someone please correct me where I'm wrong as I certainly don't claim to be an expert on this whole subject.
From what I understand the tax money from supporting this bill that could go to funding abortion comes from loopholes that are already exploited in the current Hyde Amendment and not something that is explicitly created by this bill. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood#Facilities_and_funding) and quite a few other news stories, Planned Parenthood currently receives government funding so this shows that tax money is already going to funding abortions and that’s not something new coming from this bill.
Also, the Hyde Amendment has to be renewed every year as a 'rider' on the budget appropriations. It's not an actual 'law' that has been passed through the legislature and it’s certainly not something that’s permanent. It could be removed even easier than an Executive Order simply by the President not signing it one year.
Now the Executive Order seems to be more permanent and more powerful than the Hyde Amendment since it doesn't have to be renewed every year. Also, the Executive Order is supposed to set up some kind of enforcement mechanism and states are supposed to write guidelines that have to be followed. Albeit ‘enforcement mechanism' and 'guidelines' are vague, this is stronger wording than the current language of the Hyde Amendment.
So now to my confusion: Why are we throwing Bart Stupak under the bus and writing off this Executive order as useless?! It seems to be stronger than the federal restriction we currently have against funding abortion. If it is, we owe our thanks to Stupak for this increased restriction on abortion that came from a Health Care Bill.
Further convincing me that this Executive Order actually does increase restrictions is the opposition from pro-abortion groups:
-The Presidents of NOW and Planned Parenthood both oppose the Executive Order: (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pro-abortion_lobbies_incensed_at_stupak_deal_to_pass_health_care/)
-NARAL actually said they couldn't endorse the bill because of the Executive Order : (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/03/abortion_rights_groups_not_hap.html)
So now I'm confused as to why, at least on a pro-life level, we can't be thankful to Stupak and support this Executive Order. If the EO is being criticized by both Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion groups, it seems to me there is a much greater chance it will not stand. So if it does increase abortion restrictions, we need to be loudly supporting it. Also, criticizing Stupak of not taking a Pro-Life stand when he seems to be the reason that we will have greater restrictions on abortion than we did before the bill seems to be counterproductive as that will scare any future Democrat away from being Pro-Life. Stupak has taken a beating from liberal Democrats this whole process, being criticized by Pro-Lifers will basically say that there is literally nobody that will support a Pro-Life Democrat.
Basically, what I'm worried about is that we are criticizing Stupak and the Executive Order for not being Pro-Life when we disagree on the political implications of the Health Care Bill (ie Bigger Government/More Social Programs). I certainly disagree on political terms with the bill as well, but I don't want to set back the Pro-Life movement by frightening Democrats of the political backlash of a Pro-Life stance and guaranteeing the defeat of the Executive Order.
Sorry for writing a book, I'm just thoroughly confused over this…
-JB
March 23, 2010 at 3:15 pm
JB – From what I understand, Stupak turned the future of the lives of the unborn over to the hands of the most radically pro-death president ever to be elected. This should not bode well. The President was making an empty gesture to this failing politician, and he should have known better than to accept it from the man who has overturn pro-life measures right and left (Mexico City Policy on his FIRST DAY IN OFFICE!) and has blatantly lied to the American people.
I heard today on Mike Church that Stupak was all a ruse. That Stupak, Pelosi, and Obama himself knew that Stupak would vote for the Obamacare. And that they continued to play Stupak's political pro-life position to the very end to distract and otherwise occupy the entire energy of the pro-life movement. At the very last hour, Obama knew he would have to offer the executive order, and that this would show that the efforts and energies of the pro-life movement behind this "pro life Democrat" would be in vain. He kept us distracted long enough on this one issue to pass this bill. We've been duped, in other words, by the most cunning man I've ever seen or heard about in American history.
March 23, 2010 at 3:17 pm
JB Just to further clarify…Obama can overturn this executive order anytime he feels like it, or any other pro-death president in office after him. Unlike the Hyde Amendment, it's solely an executive decision, and is not up to members of the Congress to decide. It's a political whim for any president, and is therefore subjective and not at all strong.
March 23, 2010 at 3:48 pm
Thanks for the response Patty!
Just to further clarify…Obama can overturn this executive order anytime he feels like it, or any other pro-death president in office after him.
Good point, I was thinking he could just veto that particular part of the appropriations bill. But that was me not realizing that line-item vetoes don't apply to Presidents (That's just me wandering off into areas I'm not exactly an expert in…)
However, shouldn't that be even more reason for us to keep the pressure on him to not repeal it? If we emphasize that it's not very important, that minimizes any political backlash for removing it. I agree with you in saying putting trust in Obama supporting the Pro-Life position seems far from the best idea. But I do have quite a bit of confidence he will do his best to get reelected and won't repeal this Order if that is the consequence.
Obama has already shown that his political career is more important any promises he made in the campaign, which is why his approval rating has dropped so much so quickly. His backtracking on his promise to sign the FOCA as his first act as President that he made to Planned Parenthood (and thank God for that backtracking!) really upset Planned Parenthood and many extreme abortion organizations.
He also upset many abortion organizations by this Executive Order which is shown by the links in my original post. Although it may not be as permanent as I was originally thinking, this does seem to imply it goes father than what the Hyde Amendment does by itself.
I guess my I don't think we should be so quick to call for Stupak's head and we shouldn't be downplaying the importance of not revoking this EO. From what I've followed of this whole process, it seems like there's no way we would've even got this Executive Order as part of the deal if he didn't take the stand that he did.
I'm certainly not saying that the Executive Order means we reached our ultimate goal. But from what I can tell, it very well could do a good job to stop the expansion of abortion funding that would've been caused by this bill without it. It seems to leave us in about the same place we were before the bill since there were already abuses of the Hyde Amendment.
As I said before, please feel free to correct anything wrong in my post. I will not be offended in the least 🙂
-JB
P.S. Hopefully my formatting was better this time. My last post looks like a terrible wall 'o text…
March 23, 2010 at 6:58 pm
I believe that pelosi and the O had the votes or they never would have called for the debate and voted, which means Stupak knew all along what he was going to do. There is no way the dems were going to allow something so important to them fail. It was bait and switch in it's finest hour.
I'm just surprised that there were no visible arms in casts on Sunday night. Chicago politics usually leave marks.
March 23, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Justin, you are right, and I don't know why more pro-lifers don't see it. They are talking as though the EO is worthless because it is no real substitute for the Stupak Amendment. Sure, it isn't permanent, it isn't legislation, and it can be rescinded. It might even be overturned in court.
But it does commit the President formally on paper to executing the provisions of the law in accordance with the Hyde Amendment. For example, he says he will make sure that none of the funds that are appropriated for the Community Health Centers go to pay for abortions. (This in my opinion is a big deal – it's probably more important to Planned Parenthood than the whole insurance thing. They are always moaning that something like 87% of counties in the U.S. don't have abortion, and now they will get the expansion of abortion that they want). This is a big deal. We can't legally prevent all those centers from starting to provide abortions, but if the President holds to what he says, no federal funds will go to paying for them.
Now, Obama is about to go on the road to promote the new law. He will probably talk up the EO and no-federal funding for abortion aspect, because he know's it's politically popular. What is the best thing pro-lifers can do when we attend these gatherings? Shout "Liar! Satan! We know you don't really mean it?" Or should we say: "Thank you for committing yourself to what you've been promising in this regard. We expect you to act accordingly. If not, you are toast in 2012."
Now I don't think this will necessarily succeed. It may make Obama finally realize he is actually responsible to the electorate. Or it might not. In fact, it probably won't. But it still has a better chance of succeeding than the first course. That one would just give him a chance to write all-prolifers off as unreasoning shrieking harpies.
So which do we want to do? I think it is important for us right now to support this EO, unless Obama doesn't actually sign it (has he?) or it is immediately overturned. But please, let's use a little political sense.
March 23, 2010 at 7:29 pm
By the way, Obama could never has signed FOCA as his first act is President, because it had never even come close to passing through Congress. FOCA was a bill, not an executive order. But now, he's got everything in FOCA in the health care law. Sigh.
March 24, 2010 at 12:32 am
It was very bad judgment and by no means required by Catholic social doctrine for the bishops to support the bill, even if they hoped to get good language about abortion. What about all the other moral issues that are going to come up concerning "health care?"
March 24, 2010 at 1:23 am
Can we go back to burning folks at the stake?
88 Catholic House Reps voted for the bill. 9 Voted against. Hey Bishops, they aren't listening, maybe its time to withhold Holy Communion. There is no grace in their reception of it just scandal.
March 24, 2010 at 3:41 am
Folks, there is another possibility no one seems to have brought up, but I will. (Patrick, feel free to delete my comment if you think it's out of line.)
Might Stupak have been given an offer he couldn't refuse? (And I don't mean wads of cash for his district coupled with a meaningless EO, though those could have been used for cover.) I mean, my boss would like you to sign Jonny Fontane's contract release, Mr. Bandleader, and by the way, how's your daughter doing?