From an interview today with National Review Online:
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.”
The chilling bold emphasis is mine.
The End of the Road for Pro-Life Democrats?
It’s okay by me.
Let the Democrats be known for its liberal-leftist platform of pro-abortion, gay marriage, weak national defense, big government-higher taxes, political correctness-hate crime legislation, liberal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, etc….
Republicans suck, especially RINO’s, but they don’t suck as hard and as bad as the Democrats.
TUAD, brother, I love you in the Lord, and definitely sympathize with the substance of your comment. The manner in which you made it? Notsomuch.
Can you make your point without being vulgar?
Version 2.0.
Republicans stink too, especially RINO’s, but they don’t stink as bad as the Democrats.
That’s right, standing in proud triumph about pro-lifers being marginalized because they’re not on my political team – OK. Using the word ‘suck’ – not so much. Sheesh.
Somebody send Stupak a copy of Zell Miller’s book. ;-)
Brendt, what book is that? Thanks. (Your comment is what I call “for club members only”; that is, only people “in the know” will recognize what book you are referring to, everyone else is left out. It would be more fruitful if you could be specific.)
May God richly bless you for your stand on abortion. This whold health bill is messes up and needs a total overhaul but the abortion item is to big to allow.
I am a registered Democrat but I will never vote democrate again as long as I live unless I feel very confident that the person I am voting far is not part of the “”Chicago mob”, they do not have a facisim philosophy, and they do have some morals. I am not seeing much of these items in the democratic party. Why are you staying in the party? I am ashamed to be associated with them in any regard.
Democrats have been saying that (1) the bill doesn’t change current law and in fact Stupak actually wants to limit it more than it currently is and (2) even if they did want to change the language there’s no way to do so through reconcilliation so there’s really no reason to continue debating it anyway.
Has there been any real debate on those 2 points or at least some independent analysis of them?
Did Stupak really call it Obamacare? I’ve been under the impression that he’s a real ally of the Democrats on this issue and he just has this one major issue.
El Bryan,
You are correct. Stupak is an ally and strong proponent of Obamacare (no, Stupak wouldn’t have called it Obamacare). He would even be for single-payer universal healthcare (which this bill is not – singlepayer). The only problem that Stupak has with the bill is federal funding of abortion.
does this sting you specifically, Justin?
you seem to tend pro-life Democratic in several of your posts.
No, I’m not a pro-life Dem by any stretch of the imagination. But I do think it’s a bad thing is the minority of pro-lifers is further marginalized.
UPDATE:
Congressman Stupak called NRO to clarify his comments. In recent conversations, he says that some Democratic members, not Democratic leaders, have been citing a Congressional Budget Office report that says his amendment will cost $500 million to implement over ten years. “I did not mean to infer that the leaders are using financial arguments to deny my amendment,” he says. “We have spoken about the CBO and my amendment’s costs, but the leadership has not said that it costs too much money. My point here was that if cost is becoming a concern about my amendment, then that should be addressed, since this is the sanctity of life we’re talking about. We can address those costs. Cost should not be a reason to deny my amendment.”
The Hyde Amendment already bans Federal funding of abortion. I’m not so sure what the fuss is all about except that the Stupak Amendment further restricts private insurance companies from offering any type of abortion insurance if they are a part of the exchanges.
Steve, this may help:
http://action.aul.org/site/R?i=IF432Df05c9xD1LSxhZaew
Thanks for the link, Justin.
It’s my understanding that the present Senate version DOES prohibit abortion. The difference in the two versions is that Stupak forbids private insurers from offering abortion coverage if they are in the exchange. Recently, Catholic hospitals have endorsed the plan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/14/catholic-hospitals-endors_n_498389.html
I can understand wanting the tougher language, however, the neither bill allows federal funds to be used for abortion.