Stupak Gets His Vote

YouTube Preview Image

Representative Bart Stupak’s (D. MI.) amendment to the ObamaCare bill in the House will get an up or down vote. Stupak’s amendment would prohibit all funding of abortion under the House ObamaCare bill.  Now the Lying Worthless Political Hack, a/k/a, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, attempted to avoid a vote on the Stupak Amendment by concocting a false compromise which was shot down.  So why is she caving now after so long attempting to avoid a vote on this issue which threatens to derail ObamaCare for good?  She doesn’t have the votes to pass it otherwise. Her whip Steny Hoyer (D. MD.), has told her that he doesn’t have the votes to pass ObamaCare unless pro-life Dems get this vote.

If the amendment passes, it is a cinch that enough liberal Democrats will oppose it to kill the ObamaCare bill in the House.  If the amendment fails, enough Democrats might still support the bill to pass it.  Stupak has indicated, see video above, that this is the course that he will follow.  I would suggest that readers of this blog might wish to contact their CongressCritters today and indicate clearly that abortion funding in the ObamaCare bill is completely unacceptable.

Update I: Stupak Amendment passes 240 (176 Republicans and 64 Democrats) to 194 ( all Democrats) and one Republican who voted present.  With those type of numbers I think it is politically impossible for this to be removed in a conference comittee with the Senate, assuming the Senate passes a health care bill which I consider unlikely.

Update II: ObamaCare passes in the House 220 (219 Democrats and 1 Republican)- 215 (176 Republicans and 39 Democrats).  Now on to the Senate.  Whatever the Senate does,  the House leadership will not be able to pass this bill after any future reconciliation conference unless the Stupak amendment is part of the package, and I doubt if they can hold all of the 194 Democrats who voted against Stupak if Stupak is part of the package.

22 Responses to Stupak Gets His Vote

  • My Rep. Maurice Hinchey, is a card carrying liberal, Catholic, pro-abortion, Democrat but I emailed him just the same. Being from New York everyone who “represents” me does so, the vast majority of the time, in opposition to how I would prefer.

    When I read the co-sponsors of HR 3962 I saw that Rep. Charles Rangel was among them, good Catholic, from NYC that he is.

    You know I am opposed to one-issue Catholicism, as I feel is the case with abortion and the Catholic Church(although the Church is correct in its stance just severely(malignantly so) myopic regarding other life issues) yet I could not fail to oppose this legislation and make it known to Mr. Hinchey.

    Thanks for the post.

  • Thank you Karl for making the contact. This vote comes at a good time since a lot of the Blue Dogs will be sweating bullets over New Jersey and Virginia. If Pelosi and Reid were competent they would have had this vote months ago. Fortunately they are not.

  • We cannot allow child murder to not only be allowed by government but also to fund it with our labor. This is just sick.

    My fear is that the amendment to the 2,000+ page debacle will simply be a bandaid used to restrain a Leviathan. This bill is so all encompassing and will create so much havoc and consolidation of power that if it passes becuase of this amendment more children will be killed also.

    Their are forces at the highest levels of government that want to murder our children. This amendment will not stop them. They will use the massive power of this unprecedented bureaucracy to promote and fund murder without need of law.

    A 2,000 page bill will become a 2,000 page law, which will become 200,000 rules determined, implemented and enforced by unelected and unaccountable government lifers.

    If this bill passes say good bye to America as we know it and the change that comes will be nothing like the good that is in America today and will compoud and multiply the evils. Nothing of Catholic Social Doctrine will survive if this monstrosity passes.

    We are being fooled with an allegedly ‘pro-life’ amendment. If the Blue Dogs fall for this then it may be time for the firing squad.

  • Using modern science, not medieval science the question is: “When can we say the fetus is a living human being?” The answer for most is when brain waves are detected, around the end of the second trimester. That is why British law forbids late term abortion but allow it earlier. The fetus before brain waves is biological life, still primarily a part of the mother. After brain waves appear, the fetus is human life, even if still part of the mother.

  • Actually John it is pro-aborts who tend to cite medieval science in this debate, with out of context arguments from theories of ensoulment. From conception human beings are human beings with their own unique genetic code, and not chattel to be slaughtered at the whim of the mother, or the whim of others coercing the mother to kill her child.

  • You cannot be “just a little bit against abortion.” If all life is not held sacred and protected, then no life is safe. For those who doubt the efficacy of this, please review the film and documentary propaganda the Nazis used to convince a sophisticated and cultured populace that there existed different claims to the right for life…Jews, gypsies, physically/mentally-disabled persons, eastern European races were not worthy of the resources the Reich needed to launch a war. Indian and Chinese parents abort fetuses just because they are not male.Apparently, only the male son is capable of taking care of his parents in their old age. Of course, in our society, we abort for concvenience. I wonder what definition of convenience in the future will be used to justify the killing of the unborn, the infirm, the elderly, the severely handicapped, etc.

    The right of a human being [fetus included] trumps the right of women, the government, parents to take that life.If Catholics and other Christians do not stand up for the sacredness of all life, why should I bother to be Catholic. Who then will speak for the unborn?

  • Bravo Dr. Holman!

  • Dr. Holman,

    We belong to the Catholic Church because we belong to her head, Jesus the Christ. The Catholic Church is not a political party. The Catholic Church has no platform. Even if every Catholic was pro-abortion the Church and the Magesterium of the Church will never compromise on the sanctity of human life. That is a guarantee of the Holy Spirit, Lord and giver of LIFE.

    The error here is not in the teaching or stance of the Church. It is a problem of implementation. Some bishops and other clergy have been sending confusing signals about this and they are to be ignored. The teaching of the Magesterium trumps any other. Law is properly the realm of the laity. We are to be informed by the Church and work to fulfill the moral teachings in our lives and our nations and governments.

    The biggest problem here is Catholic congressional critters that are pro-abortion or indifferent to the issue. There are more than enough critters in congress who identify themselves as Catholic, not the least of which is the lying political hack Pelosi, to kill all bills that seek the murder of chilren. If these critter would vote their properly informed consciences (first they have to pcik up a catechism) not only would ALL of these assault on health care proposals die but a law to prevent the murder of any more children would pass, even with the post-birth murderer in the WH, and the Supreme Court would have no provision in the Constitution to undo it.

    The proper question to ask is why bother with either political party, since they are flip sides of the same sick coin; rather than why bother being Catholic? you’re not Catholic what are you?

  • Note that pro-life Democrats are the key to either stopping this bill completely or preventing it from funding a massive expansion of abortion services. Republicans alone are too far in the minority to have any effect.

    That ought to give some pause to those who insist that no pro-lifer can ever be a Democrat, or vote for a Democrat, because the official party platform is pro-abortion.

    And perhaps it ought to give some pause to those who insist that we must never vote for anyone whose pro life record is less than 100 percent perfect. (I get the impression Stupak may not be pro-life enough for some people based on past public statements of his)

    Without these pro-life Dems, even the less than perfect pro-life Dems, there would be NO way to stop this abortion juggernaut. There needs to be a pro-life presence in BOTH parties and electing more pro-life Dems ought to be the number one political priority of the pro-life movement… equal to or even greater than getting pro-life justices on the Supreme Court, because those justices can’t get confirmed without Senators willing to vote for them.

  • The Stupak-Pitts Amendment passed with 240 votes! :)

  • Now it needs to stay put, provided this ultimately gets to conference.

  • I’m surprised by the size of the victory. I bet Pelosi is too. I imagine the plan was to have this stripped away in a future conference committee with the Senate reconciling the two health bills. This was premised on a narrow passage of Stupak. With 64 Democrats and all but one of the Republicans in favor of the Stupak amendment, Pelosi would probably see the bill go down in flames if that trick was pulled. Now she has to explain to 194 of her caucus why they should continue to support a bill which has just handed the pro-life forces their biggest legislative victory this year.

  • The health care bill passed with 220 votes.

  • This is excellent news. Can I now expect all Catholics to throw themselves fully behind the health care bill that incorporates the Stupak amendment?

  • Of course not. There’s no “Catholic” obligation to support this particular bill. As I’ve pointed out before, with nary an answer, there are several times more people who die from getting healthcare as there are who die from the lack of it (at least in America). So it’s completely open for a Catholic, or anyone of sound mind, to wonder whether people’s health will overall be benefited, and whether it’s the wisest use of hundreds of billions of dollars, to give more so-called “health-care” to more people.

  • No Tony, it is now merely an an unwise idea and not an evil idea as it would be without the Stupak Amendment, but nonetheless it remains foolishness on stilts. At any rate a health care bill from the Senate must first receive 60 votes to invoke cloture, and I can’t imagine anything resembling the House bill even getting 55 votes in the Senate.

  • That had to be a joke. Do you really beleive the Stupak ammendment will protect children?

    Fools.

  • Dear Morning’s Minion,

    This bill continues to violate Catholic teachings on matters of intrinsic evil and can also be opposed on legitimate prudential grounds. It is tragic to call this health plan “universal” when it simply shifts who doesn’t receive care from the poor to the disabled and elderly.

    Regards,
    Steve

    PS: I personally cannot afford health insurance (though I’d like it), and I loathe the GOP. So you’ll need to find another option for your ad hominem attack response.

  • Donald:

    The “Democrats for Life” have stepped up. Should at least some honest Republicans not do the same thing now that there is a bill with iron-clas protection against abortion? After all, the USCCB said that passing the Stupak amendment would turn them from a critic to a strong supporter.

    I’m disappointed. I’ve noticed all along that for many “Catholics” who opposed this reform, especially on the internet, abortion was not the defining issue. Intead, the defining issue was adherance to an individualist ethos, an ethos that stood against the Catholic notion of solidarity, which surely calls for the community to provide health care to all. After all, the Church deems healthcare as a fundamental right. Maintaining the status quo is a violation of that right.

  • Steve,

    I’[m not going to call names or attack the GOP (I love the way come people defelct all criticism with cries of ad homimum - weird in this context). I will merely take issue with this statement: [this bill] “simply shifts who doesn’t receive care from the poor to the disabled and elderly”

    I will simply ask: where are you getting this silliness? The House bill is largely financed by an income tax surcharge and taking the middleman our of medicare advantage. In fact, one reason the AARP supports this bill is that it does largely nothing the curb the escalating costs of medicare. ANd the disabled? Huh? As someone in the thicket of the healthcare debate for yours, I don’t know where you get this stuff. And don’t you think if there were serious life issues other abortion, the USCCB would be flagging them???

  • Amazing. The brave anonymous Morning’s Minion has started putting Catholics who disagree that this bill is the best way to serve the common good in scare quotes. “Catholics.”

    Nice.

    Morning’s Minion, who defends the diversity of political options regarding the legality of abortion from a Catholic perspective, cannot admit that same diversity here.

    Morning’s Minion: If I, as a Catholic, oppose this legislation because I believe that it will hurt more people than it helps and will not meet the needs of those it claims to help and will damage the common good, and if I believe there are other legislative options that will do more to improve the situation in regard to healthcare, it is not your place to define me as less than Catholic because of that.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .