By now you have probably heard that Rep. Bart Stupak has gone yes on Obama care in turn for an Executive Order from the same man who wrote an Executive Order rescinding the Mexico City Policy and as a State Senator manage to repeatedly vote yes on infanticide.
Can’t say that I am surprised. I am pretty much a pessimistic-optimist. I never got on the pro-Stupak bandwagon because I figured I would wait to see his actual vote. I certainly did pray for him – especially considering the massive pressure he was under. If he had held to his guns I would have been pleasantly surprised – as it is I am just disappointed, but not surprised.
It would have been nice to believe in a Catholic pro-life Democrat. But as my atheist friends would say “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” and that is also true towards the existence of pro-life Democrats. Not that I think Republicans are thoroughly pro-life, but at least you can actually point to some existing. Though charitably I should believe that Rep. Stupak is a pro-life Democrat that just got duped and since I am too cynical I think I will work on believing this.
There was a story yesterday of 50 Democrats who would oppose the bill if any Stupak language made its way into it. Funny how the signed Executive Order has not freaked out anybody on the pro-abortion side. We are suppose to believe there was such a fight in the Senate and then the congress up to now to reject any such language and yet – ho hum – on the Executive Order.
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.”
Of course the naysayers about abortion language say the Senate Bill never supported abortion in any way. Strange how groups never very pro-life assure is it does not support funding of abortion, but every credible pro-life group says it does. Funny that Progressive Catholics who never seem to be all that bothered about the slaughter of the innocents think the Senate Bill was just fine and dandy.
One thing people seem to forget that it always goes to more than just the wording in the bill. For example Medicaid said absolutely nothing about funding of abortion. Yet a judge deemed that it did and it is only the annually reinstatement of the Hyde Amendment that prevents Medicaid funding of abortion. The language has to be explicit or some Culture of Death judge out there will override it. The truth is most Democrats believe that abortion coverage is indeed healthcare and so any bill that moves to provide for healthcare must necessarily advance towards paying for abortion. So we will be paying for abortion, contraception, serializations and everything else that cries out to God. Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, unfortunately Caesar wants to take what belongs to God by snuffing out the life of the innocents.
When the framers of the Constitution wrote about privacy they had no intent that this would mean that a women could choose to murder the innocent child in her womb. The Presidents Executive Order (which could be cancelled at anytime) does not have the force of law to keep some judge from declaring that we must fund abortions.
Now the reason President Obama is trying to appease Bart Stupak is that he thought the Congressman wanted a Execution Order for the Unborn. Oops.
And what is the relevance of the EO next year, if the Hyde amendment is not reinstated?
I have heard that the executive order cannot affect a law or mandate passed by Congress and signed by the President. So Stupak sold out for 30 pieces of silver and a promise by a president who rescinded the Mexico City policy and also was a pro-death state senator and voted against life every chance he got. Get rid of every member of Congress and start over.
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 a risky and demonstrates gullibillity 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.
Mark, 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!
If this law, including the promised executive order, actually did limit access to abortion & our taxes paying for them, I highl;y doubt Planned Parenthood would be applauding it being passed like it is.
He never was for it, he was granstanding.
You guys wait…..they’re just getting started.
I am a registered Independent….next time I am going to do something I’ve never done….vote Republican across the board. Not that I think it will do any good…..after all, the people’s voices were not heard this time.
Where exactly did the framers write about privacy?
I’m assuming that he go something else besides this lame executive order. Maybe Obama can give him an ambassadorship somewhere near Malta so he can hang out with fellow “pro-lifer” Doug Kmiec.
His district “miraculously” got several million for three airports, did he sell out for this? or was he pretending all along?
I guess people were daydreaming through the gospel yesterday….
You are unfairly judging Bart’s intentions. His record has been pro-life for many years. You can’t take a sentence here and there from him and prove anything. His voting record speaks.
We have just words from the Republicans. You think one senate Republican could have walked the plank and joined Bart for a deal-or-no-deal in a conference comittee? I guess they care more about defeating socialism (worthwhile) than they do about the unborn.
A conservatgive, pro-life, Yooper, and a registered Republican.
From a UP conservative.
btw it was $750 thousaqnd for 3 rural airport upgrades. We don’t know whehter it was a quid pro quo or not. Remember yesterday’s gospel …
N.O.W. is upset at Obama about compromising with Stupak. Google it.
None of this who reacted how to what stuff proves anything. It’s part of the media strategy, fund-raising strategy.
Mark in da up,
You’re post looks to me like boilerplate used to post on multiple blogs.
For example you bring up points I never made. Never talked about the airport money or brought up what he previously said.
Please read my post before posting generic replies. Plus Planned Parenthood is quite okay with the Executive Order. Can you show me one real pro-life group that thinks the Executive Order means anything?
So we will be paying for abortion, contraception, serializations and everything else that cries out to God.
I knewd there was sumthin fishy bout them Lone Ranger and Flash Gordon flickershows! 😉
Steve, this is the beauty of the mid-term election. If you want to ensure that your voice is heard, vote and WORK for a candidate who wants to hear you.
“mark in da up”, I’m not going to judge Bart Stupak’s intentions, since we cannot know what happened behind the scenes; but I can examine his actions. Stupak voted for a bill that does nothing to prevent federal funding of abortion. The EO is generally worthless. When he spoke before the vote for the motion to recommit, he trashed pro-lifer GOPers in the chamber — and frankly tromped on pro-life citizens who had supported his efforts. I see no actions to reward. I’ll continue to pray for him, as I will for all in our govt. — for salvation, conversion of heart and will and spirit to the Lord.
Jeff, I was responding to the commenter, not to your blog. You were both skeptical and charitable a good mix. The comments were from me alone – not boilerplate. I am as conservative and Catholic as you get and have no use for anything but the true church and am pro-life to the max – family was at the RTL march 2 months ago. I love the church also true charity and love. And I think that the commenters here are displaying neither. I don’t like the bill and despise Obama. But I can see where Bart is coming from. From his perspective, he has prudentially done the most pro-life thing. This is his hometown and I have spokem to him prsonnally on this issue.
I think that we all need to understand that improved access to HC is just a teeney part of the pro-life equation. As a 3-yr cancer survivor with children, I recognize that had I been one of the working poor 3 years ago, my cancer would not have been detected and I’d be in a hospice and broke.
Bart sees vague Seante prohibition against fed-funding plus BHO’s EO plus addressing the HC problem as the best win he can get for life.
Henry Hyde was not really pro-life I guess. The Hyde amendment allows fed funding of abortion for rape, incest and life (often interpreted as “health”) of the mother. I believe that all life is sacred, and the only acceptable abortion is that which occurs as an unintended consequence of life-saving. I guess many repubs whom we consider pro-life are not really pro-life, since they have they are on the same page as Hyde. They would argue that it’s the best they can get – a prudential judgement in the real political climate.
Also, I urge all Catholics to examine their employer-provided plan. If you are paying for part of the plan, then you are doing what the democrats want to do with our tax dollars. You must cancel your plan immediately.
Pro-life Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak got his deal within a couple of days of the democrats reneging on the deal that broke down the resistance of pro-life Democratic Senator Ben Nelson.
When the democrats can’t even be trusted on a promise to ladle out pork, what chance is there that they will keep a pro-life promise?
Hey, if can’t trust a vitriolic pro-abortionist, who can you trust 🙁