PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Bart Stupak - Pro Life Dem


ChiefaRoo
03-12-2010, 10:34 PM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzU0MDYxMWEyOTdiNGU1OGU3ZjYzYmE3Y2ZlZDQ5NTY=

Friday, March 12, 2010



‘They Just Want This Over’ [Robert Costa]


Sitting in an airport, on his way home to Michigan, Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, is chagrined. “They’re ignoring me,” he says, in a phone interview with National Review Online. “That’s their strategy now. The House Democratic leaders think they have the votes to pass the Senate’s health-care bill without us. At this point, there is no doubt that they’ve been able to peel off one or two of my twelve. And even if they don’t have the votes, it’s been made clear to us that they won’t insert our language on the abortion issue.”

According to Stupak, that group of twelve pro-life House Democrats — the “Stupak dozen” — has privately agreed for months to vote ‘no’ on the Senate’s health-care bill if federal funding for abortion is included in the final legislative language. Now, in the debate’s final hours, Stupak says the other eleven are coming under “enormous” political pressure from both the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). “I am a definite ‘no’ vote,” he says. “I didn’t cave. The others are having both of their arms twisted, and we’re all getting pounded by our traditional Democratic supporters, like unions.”

Stupak says he also doesn’t trust the “Slaughter solution,” a legislative maneuver being bandied about on Capitol Hill as a way to pass the Senate bill in the House without actually voting on it. “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,” he says. “I don’t have a warm-and-fuzzy feeling about what I’m hearing.”

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

If Obamacare passes, Stupak says, it could signal the end of any meaningful role for pro-life Democrats within their own party. “It would be very, very hard for someone who is a right-to-life Democrat to run for office,” he says. “I won’t leave the party. I’m more comfortable here and still believe in a role within it for the right-to-life cause, but this bill will make being a pro-life Democrat much more difficult. They don’t even want to debate this issue. We’ll probably have to wait until the Republicans take back the majority to fix this.”

“Throughout this debate, even when the House leaders have acknowledged us, it’s always been in a backhanded way,” he laments. “I’m telling the others to hold firm, and we’ll meet next week, but I’m disappointed in my colleagues who said they’d be with us and now they’re not. It’s almost like some right-to-life members don’t want to be bothered. They just want this over.”

And the politics of the issue are pretty rough. “This has really reached an unhealthy stage,” Stupak says. “People are threatening ethics complaints on me. On the left, they’re really stepping it up. Every day, from Rachel Maddow to the Daily Kos, it keeps coming. Does it bother me? Sure. Does it change my position? No.”




03/12 03:31 PMShare

WoodDraw
03-13-2010, 12:01 AM
What's the abortion part in the bill? I thought it was removed awhile ago as part of a compromise? I had no idea it was still in the bill?

Warrior5
03-13-2010, 06:05 AM
What's the abortion part in the bill? I thought it was removed awhile ago as part of a compromise? I had no idea it was still in the bill?

Steny Hoyer told reporters yesterday that abortion language was never removed from the bill, and would not be removed.

BigRedChief
03-13-2010, 07:57 AM
What's the abortion part in the bill? I thought it was removed awhile ago as part of a compromise? I had no idea it was still in the bill?It was. No one wants to start federal funding of abortions. As far as I know at least publically everyone just wants to keep the status quo thats been in place for 30 years.

I don't understand why they just don't attach the Hyde amendament?

My personal opinon is that the federal government has no right to dictate, to be that invasive in our private lifes. Any candidate that supports returning to the days of back alley coat hanger abortions is off my list of possibilites. But, that being said, not a single penny of federal money should be used to fund abortion.

orange
03-13-2010, 08:11 AM
Abortion was removed from the House version - not the Senate version.

They have decided that removing the Senate's portion can't be done with Reconciliation so they're telling Stupak to pound sand.

What's in the Senate bill: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003040058

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Throughout this debate, even when the House leaders have acknowledged us, it’s always been in a backhanded way,” he laments. “I’m telling the others to hold firm, and we’ll meet next week, but I’m disappointed in my colleagues who said they’d be with us and now they’re not. It’s almost like some right-to-life members don’t want to be bothered. They just want this over.”

Stupak's claim that he has a dozen votes has never been verified. He mentions Rachel Maddow - she did a segment where she could only identify four - and she's always been ripping him for C Street (look for more about that coming soon).

stevieray
03-13-2010, 09:06 AM
It Any candidate that supports returning to the days of back alley coat hanger abortions is off my list of possibilites.
Yet you don't mind the mother being invasive on the childs life.

and the coat hanger argument is so overdramatic, like every women even has the courage to do something so horrific..which leads to another point..abortion is horrifc.
....and spare me the it's her body...it's not...it's not her heartbeat that starts before she knows she's pregnant...

..and she doesn't give life, only birth...but somehow she's been 'given' the power to take life...but it's only bad if it's a self-induced back ally coathanger abortion.

:shake:

Maggot Brain
03-14-2010, 01:17 AM
and the coat hanger argument is so overdramatic,

It's a knee-jerk response. I don't think it resonates either, but it is used a lot in the abortion debate. Like you said, it probably has the opposite of the intended effect because it highlights the violence of the act.

Chiefshrink
03-14-2010, 09:22 AM
Too bad I can't "shrink" this guy. I could find out real quick whether he is truly Pro-life based on true personal moral principle or whether he is Pro-life just based on his State district census polling the issue of abortion.

I guess we'll find out soon enough.

patteeu
03-14-2010, 03:21 PM
It was. No one wants to start federal funding of abortions. As far as I know at least publically everyone just wants to keep the status quo thats been in place for 30 years.

I don't understand why they just don't attach the Hyde amendament?

My personal opinon is that the federal government has no right to dictate, to be that invasive in our private lifes. Any candidate that supports returning to the days of back alley coat hanger abortions is off my list of possibilites. But, that being said, not a single penny of federal money should be used to fund abortion.

Will people who receive federal subsidies under ObamaCare be able to purchase insurance policies that meet the requirements of the exchange and that also cover abortion services?

Saul Good
03-14-2010, 04:42 PM
Any candidate that supports returning to the days of back alley coat hanger abortions is off my list of possibilites.

I agree. We should make it legal to commit acts of violence so that the perpetrators don't have to put themselves in danger. I'd like to take it a step further. Let's legalize rape. Otherwise, rapists will have to worry about getting maced. We need to make committing crimes safer for the criminals.

BucEyedPea
03-14-2010, 07:25 PM
My personal opinon is that the federal government has no right to dictate, to be that invasive in our private lifes. Any candidate that supports returning to the days of back alley coat hanger abortions is off my list of possibilites. But, that being said, not a single penny of federal money should be used to fund abortion.

Those who used coat hangers were doing it themselves mostly. There were plenty of doctors around who performed medical abortions underground in the black market before it was illegal. So this back alley coat hanger stuff is an exaggeration.

WoodDraw
03-15-2010, 01:39 AM
Will people who receive federal subsidies under ObamaCare be able to purchase insurance policies that meet the requirements of the exchange and that also cover abortion services?

Yes, but they'll have to pay an abortion "subsidy".

The abortion wording seems rather harmless to me. I can see why people that have a moral problem with abortion would object. But it's hardly federal funding of abortions.