Stupak Pledges to Hold Firm
As he comes under increasing pressure from the Obama administration, Congressman Bart Stupak is publicly stating that he and his colleagues in the House will stand firm on pro-life principles and reject any bill that allows public funding of abortion.
At this point I am fairly certain I don’t want the Obama administration to have a thing to do with my health coverage. Nor am I convinced that a bill which leftists, libertarians, and conservatives (do I really need to link anything?) are rejecting and deriding – for different reasons, of course – is really going to end up helping the poor. Whether it is a massive giveaway to insurance companies, an unwelcome and unaffordable expansion of government power and control, or both, I see no compelling reason to support the bill, even without public funding of abortion.
If Stupak is successful and abortion funding is out of the final bill, there are at least 40 House Democrats who have pledged to vote against it (because the right to have the government pay for the murder of one’s own children is more important than insuring the poor, I guess). That will probably kill it. And if he fails, he has hinted that he and at least 10-12 of his colleagues will vote no on the bill, which may be enough to kill it.
So, either way, I say, go Bart go, Godspeed. Because if this monstrosity does get passed, I’d at least like to know that our tax dollars aren’t funding child murder. Pro-life Democrats have demonstrated their ability to influence and even steer the course of national policy. In my view, that is a positive thing no matter what else results.
8 Responses to Stupak Pledges to Hold Firm
![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YqM_zH1K7Uw/TOK1hLlt3BI/AAAAAAAAA1o/HCzoksN1-ME/s1600/email+icon+32x32.png")
- Jon commented on What Wondrous Love Is This?
(6 hours ago) - Jon commented on What Wondrous Love Is This?
(8 hours ago) - Jon commented on Lincoln and the Will of God
(8 hours ago) - T. Shaw commented on Lincoln and the Will of God
(9 hours ago) - Tom Lewis commented on Lincoln and the Will of God
(10 hours ago) - Jon commented on Lincoln and the Will of God
(10 hours ago) - Mike the Geek commented on At Last Night's Emergency SCHISM Meeting...
(12 hours ago) - Jon commented on What Wondrous Love Is This?
(1 days ago) - Cris Kramschuster commented on Why it is Worth Worrying: On the Brink of a New Pontificate
(1 days ago) - philip commented on On the Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI
(1 days ago) - c matt commented on Fools to Judge his Papacy
(1 days ago)
Great. We should pray for him.
I’ve yet to read anything about how the Senate bill funds abortions. I just don’t see it. Sure, it’s not as good as the Stupak Amendment which bans coverage outright, but the Senate bill would still prohibit public funding. It’s not the same as the Capps Amendment. The Capps Amendment allowed any policy, including the public option, to cover abortion so long as the accounting is separate. The Senate bill requires that everyone have access to a plan that doesn’t cover abortion. And without a public option, that means there’s a fair exchange from which people can pick their policies. People aren’t going to pick the more expensive policy with abortion coverage. This is why pro-choice groups oppose the bill. The free market will price out abortion coverage.
This bill needs to be stopped–Congressman Stupak and many other Congressmen have the opportunity to stop this train wreck coming down the track. Keep up the prayers and let them know of your support!
Actually, restrained,
It appears that Kathleen Sebelius has made no bones of the fact that the “separate accounting” will protect no one from having to pay into the abortion fund:
“I would say that the Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women’s health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment, and I think do a good job making sure there are choices for women, making sure there are going to be some plan options, and making sure that while public funds aren’t used, we are not isolating, discriminating against, or invading the privacy rights of women. That would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay.”
(See http://www.suzyb.org, entry for Dec. 22.)
Please note that “everyone in the exchange would pay” part.
For a more detailed explanation, you might also check out NRLC’s most recent article on why they object to the Senate bill:
http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCReidBillScoreLetter.pdf
Sebelius’ explanation is inaccurate. The Senate bill requires the availability of plans free of abortion coverage. The NRLC letter accurately explains the bill and does raise some good points but it doesn’t explain how the extra cost of abortion coverage will likely price those plans out of existence. Who is willing to write a separate check for abortion coverage? I realize that unlike the Stupak Amendment, the Senate bill is a bit of a gamble. It relies on the market rather than the law to eliminate abortion coverage but since when are conservatives so skeptical of the free market?
One objection I came across to the House version of the bill pre-Stupak amendment is that abortion, as a “legal medical procedure,” would automatically be allowed where not prohibited. I somehow doubt the writers of this monstrosity were that circumspect.
Freedom from abortion coverage isn’t the same thing as freedom from having to contribute to someone else’s abortion coverage; assuming we all do end up paying for it, those abortion-option plans won’t be priced out of the market because the rest of us will be subsidizing them. If Boxer, et. al. are determined to finagle that, I’d expect to find it somewhere in those 2000 pages. Not that it wouldn’t invite a court challenge when somebody finally finds it.
restrainedradical,
You’ve just nailed another example of doublethink in practice. Though, I am sure a reasonable conservative might counter that you don’t leave the right to life to the market, but a life with dignity…why not?
For the record, I finally got around to my inbox tonight and found the following in a Susan B. Anthony List alert from Dec. 30:
Stupak…went on to explain his objections to the Senate bill [int. w/ G. Van Susteren]:
– It recognizes abortion as a benefit covered under disease prevention (by this logic, the baby must be the disease)
– It forces taxpayers to subsidize health care plans that pay for abortions (in direct violation of the Hyde Amendment)
– It forces every enrollee in the federal exchange to pay a monthly fee to fund “reproductive rights” (abortion)