Pro-Life Democrats and Other Myths

Sunday, August 7, AD 2016

 

Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice
Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access
to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s,and young people’s health and wellbeing. We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose and seek to overturn federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.We condemn and will combat any acts of violence, harassment, and intimidation of reproductive health providers, patients, and staff.

Democrat 2016 Party Platform on abortion

 

 

 

Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently for the Church that I have deemed him Defender of the Faith, at Midwest Conservative Journal, casts his eyes on Tim Kaine:

 

“Pro-life, Catholic Democrats.”  We hardly knew ye:

Observers of the abortion debate may feel a little whiplash watching the roll out of Tim Kaine’s vice presidential nomination. His position on abortion has changed over the years, and multiple times just over the last few days. He was for the Hyde Amendment before he was against it, but as of Friday morning, he was claiming to be in favor of it again. He is trying to square a circle in his attempts to line up his supposedly “traditional Catholic view” on the issue with Hillary Clinton’s position of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand. Perhaps the impossibility of reconciling the two is what accounts for Mr. Kaine’s flip-flops during the past week.

Running for governor 11 years ago, Mr. Kaine invoked his faith in opposition to abortion, supported pro-life laws and promoted adoption as an alternative to abortion. In 2008 he said, “I’ve supported restrictions on abortion, not all on the left have appreciated it, but I think it has been important to do that because there’s a moral gravity, I think, to abortion as an issue that has to be respected.”

However, Mr. Kaine’s respect for the moral gravity of the issue seemed to completely dissipate when he moved up to national office. In the Senate, Mr. Kaine’s voting record received a crystal-clear 100 percent score from the abortion lobby. He even voted to allow late-term abortions, opposing a bill to ban the procedure after 20 weeks of pregnancy. 

Tim Kaine “evolved” still further once he was under consideration for VP, knowing how dogmatic the Democratic Party has become and how unqualified he would be in the eyes of Hillary Clinton if he retained any shred of defense for preborn lives. To improve his resume he quietly co-sponsored pro-abortion legislation in the Senate that would wipe out all state abortion restrictions, including those he signed as governor.

He even privately agreed to support Hillary Clinton’s agenda for taxpayer-funded abortions. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager went on CNN to announce Mr. Kaine’s shift on the Hyde Amendment. “He has said that he will stand with Secretary Clinton to defend a woman’s right to choose, to repeal the Hyde Amendment.”

Yet Mr. Kaine continues to maintain that he has a “traditional Catholic personal position.”

Timmy?  Insofar as you and people like you don’t seem to have a single religious principle that you won’t enthusiastically repudiate for secular political gain, best of luck on Judgment Day, “Christian.”  Because, in the immortal words of the Alan Parsons Project, I wouldn’t want to be like you.

Judas.

Not everyone that sayeth unto me, “Lord, Lord,” and all that.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Pro-Life Democrats and Other Myths

  • Kaine is a lying sack of cow manure. How convienent to switch to abortionist…..and the Virginia bishops….well, I haven’t heard a word from them. Wonder why? Canon 915…..oh, that’s right…..Cardinal Wuerl in DC, right arcoss the Potomac and Papa Frank’s best American buddy pretends Canon 915 doesn’t exist.

  • If Bishops will not implement Canon 915, then God will implement 1 Corinthians 11:27-32.
    .
    27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

  • Bart Stupak put to rest the myth of the pro-life democrat. He also pulled back the curtain and showed us how few bishops are actually pro-life. In that sense, he actually did us all a service. It’s no coincidence that the vitriol of people like Mark Shea has gone up as more and more folks know exactly what these so-called pro-life democrats actually believe.

  • As governor of my State, Kaine was vocal in opposition to the death penalty, and even before his “dissipation” was comparatively meek on the abortion issue. Let me also add following Father of Seven, any pol, such as Kaine and Stupak, who voted for obamacare knew full well that abortion was to be made a part of normalized ‘health care’ through coercive regulation, taxation, fines and penalties.

  • prolife democrat; military intelligence; pure whores; military music; truthful clinton; catholicd kaine; the list goes on . . . .

  • Judas

    Not Judas, Pontius Pilate. The original “personally pro-life” sellwash-out.

Pro-Life Democrats?

Thursday, February 28, AD 2013

Matt Archbold at Creative Minority Report explains to us why the concept of “pro-life” Democrats is almost entirely a sick joke:

Here’s what it seems happened. When the bill limiting abortions to the first 20 weeks hit the Arkansas legislature last week, pro-life Republicans and pro-life Democrats joined together to vote for it. Nice, right? But it seems now that the only reason the pro-life Dems voted for it was because they knew that the “pro-life” Democratic Governor Mike Beebe was going to veto it.

Because what happened now was that moments after the veto was announced the pro-life Republicans sought to mount a vote to override the veto. You might remember that last week the bill got 80 votes. But yesterday when the vote hit the House floor, all but two of the “pro-life” Dems walked out so they didn’t have to cast a vote. That’s right. They left empty chairs in their place. These legislators are profiles in cowardice.

Their empty chairs are the perfect symbol of pro-life Democrats. When push comes to shove, the overwhelming majority of pro-life Dems are Dems first and foremost.

Two Democrats showed an enormous amount of courage by voting for the override – John Catlett and Jody Dickinson. They deserve our praise and admiration for standing up to their government and the party for the unborn.

Now, the bill moves on to the Senate where I’m certain pro-life Dems will be fleeing out the windows of the legislature to avoid a vote. Pray that some stand up for the unborn.

Continue reading...

61 Responses to Pro-Life Democrats?

  • “Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

  • Allegedly “pro-life” Democrats, just as with “Catholic” Democrats, are ALWAYS Democrats first and foremost. As I noted the other day, they will get FAR more exercised over someone calling their party the “Democrat Party” than they will ever get over the fact that the Democrat Party is head over heels in love with abortion on demand.

  • Contemplating Beebe…

    Remember Buddy Roemer of Louisiana, Ivy League Democrat turned Republican? He was all for restrictions on abortion, it was just that the legislature could never seem to pass a bill with just the right provisions and more in sorrow than in anger he had to veto them all.

    Justice was done when he ran for re-election. He placed third to rogue Edwin Edwards and David Duke in a nonpartisan primary. Edwards won the run-off big with a great slogan, “Vote for the Crook. It’s Important”.

  • What exactly is being argued here? That “pro-life” Democrats aren’t actually pro-life…or are politically incapable of being pro-life? Some clarification please.

    Also, the Lincoln quote doesn’t really apply here…it seems like it’d be a better indictment of people who call themselves “personally pro-life, but…”, not Democrats who actually do consistently vote pro-life.

  • “What exactly is being argued here? That “pro-life” Democrats aren’t actually pro-life”

    Bingo. With pro-lifers like the vast majority of “pro-life” elected Democrats, who needs pro-aborts?

    “Also, the Lincoln quote doesn’t really apply here”

    Rubbish. Lincoln was speaking about Democrats who claimed to oppose slavery and then refused to take any action against it which is precisely what happened in Arkansas.

  • JL doing some expert hair-splitting here

  • What exactly is being argued here? That “pro-life” Democrats aren’t actually pro-life…or are politically incapable of being pro-life? Some clarification please. –

    I think if there is not a critical mass in a legislative body (and there may still be in the Pennsylvania and Rhode Island legislatures), nearly all of them cave push comes to shove. William Lipinski was the odd exception in Congress.

    With regard to opinion mongers, I suspect if you did a content analysis of Commonweal and other venues you would discover telltale signs that the contributors would prefer to be discussing anything but the non-negotiable issues and are addled by contempt for those vulgar enough to emphasize them. I do not think that described Peter Steinfels, ca. 1983, but liberal Catholics have lost a lot of juice since then.

  • Some of them do not bob and weave, though. Before he was silenced by a head injury at the end of 2008, Andrew Greeley had a great deal to say about topical political questions (and was shoveling cash into B.O.’s presidential campaign per the Federal Election Commission).

  • JDP, pardon me if I’m not comfortable with blanket statements that actually fly in the face of real-life instances. I agree that the Dems are by and large sickly beholden to abortion, but there are definitely instances of principled pro-lifers who are also democrats. Rather than vilify them, I say we encourage them and hope they can impart some sort of internal reform in their own party. Doubtful, I know, but better than berating them as “not really pro-life,” as if you’d rather have an actual non pro-life candidate running for office.

  • “Rubbish. Lincoln was speaking about Democrats who claimed to oppose slavery and then refused to take any action against it which is precisely what happened in Arkansas.”

    I agree that it does seem to resonate with this particular case in Arkansas, but not Democrat pro-lifers across the board.

  • pardon me if I’m not comfortable with blanket statements that actually fly in the face of real-life instances.

    In a country with 308 million people in it, there are always examples of anything. Also, most people do not do a whole lot of pondering of matters religious or political and do not feel the need to harmonize what appears rather discordant.

    I think there was a self-identified Democrat (and aspirant office holder) who used to post here, but he was unusual. The Vox Nova crew used to chime in here more often, and a couple of them seemed more or less sincere though one of the two was given to evasions now and again. It would be better if certain ends could be pursued through either party, and they could in 1970, but we have not lived in that world in a while.

    Robert Casey was born in 1932, William Lipinski in 1936, David Carlin in 1938, John La Falce in 1939. See a pattern?

  • Yes, a vowel constitutes the second letter of each man’s first name.

    ; )

  • “Rather than vilify them”

    take it up with the Democratic Party

  • apparatus i mean.

    you seem very willing to keep these people the benefit of the doubt, when if the GOP does something symbolically/for political purposes exclusively i’m sure you’d be all over that

  • I commend authentically pro-life Democrats because there is an immense amount of pressure on them to conform to their national party’s whims. In this way, one can be fairly certain that Democrats who vote consistently pro-life do so out of principle and personal conviction (I don’t think abortion is generally much of a constituent-salient issue, at least in most state-wide elections). On the other hand, I think it’s fairly certain that some (SOME) Republicans pay lip-service to the pro-life cause for political reasons (curry party favor), rather than personal beliefs.

    Donald’s right to call into question the actions of the Arkansas state reps, but I don’t understand why we would want to attack pro-life Democrats in general. I would much rather have two pro-life options on the ballot.

  • “but I don’t understand why we would want to attack pro-life Democrats in general”

    They have a history of being lukewarm at best and backstabbing cowards at worst. All too often “pro-life Democrat” simply means “not-rabidly-pro-abortion-Democrat.” The bar isn’t set very high.

  • It may be that we even need to pull back from too close an association with the Republican party. The fact is that their bar isn’t set very high these days either. I don’t think either party aims at Christian-informed decisions. But we exhalt the party that happens to temporarily share a couple of our positions.

  • Couldn’t agree more Jon. Unfortunately, third party politics are essentially impossible in the American system for structural reasons. I think the reality is that we have to be pragmatic. Just as we are called to be in but not of this world, I think we should also be in a party (essentially the only way to get anything done politically) but not of them (always true to comprehensive Catholicism, and hopefully shaping the parties we belong to). This is why I would encourage us to support authentically pro-life Democrats, especially Catholic ones. They’re a dying breed, for sure, but there’s a reason for that, and I’d say it has a lot to do with the partisan tribalism of too many American Catholics. Honestly, there is nothing more paradoxical and challenging than being a politically-engaged and impactful American Catholic.

  • Well, JL, I think your’re right. We must avoid complete identification with the parties and the political tribalism that plagues the country now.

    As for myself, I’m too catholic to be Catholic. So for me, the most comprehensive way is to read scripture in light of tradition and reason, recognizing scripture as my final authority. I believe in drawing on all traditions with a lower-case t for the best they have to offer.

  • given that there is exactly 0% chance of appointing anti-“Roe” justices under a Democratic administration/Democratic Senate (and despite justifiable concerns about how serious some in the GOP are, they have appointed such justices, albeit not with a 100% success rate) someone claiming they’re pro-life and voting Dem nationally doesn’t make a ton of sense unless the issue isn’t particularly high-priority for them. the party made its choice on this a long time ago, the “tribalism” is just a function of how charged issues like this are.

  • i said national cuz i assume there may still exist certain states with Dem reps who actually are more conservative on this than the national party. even then though, when you notice a pattern like this…fool me once etc.

  • Look, I’m not in love with the GOP myself. The McCain-Graham wing of the Senate is repugnant and loathsome to me, with its interventionism abroad and disregard for civil liberties at home. The RNC is also staffed by some of the most politically incompetent fools I have ever encountered in all the political history I have ever read.

    But the party has actually been solid on life issues. About as much as could be done, short of repealing Roe, was done under G.W. Bush. The party had a good pro-life track record during those years. We can inveigh that more wasn’t done, but we do have a democratic-republic that is controlled by a two-party system. There are limits to what either party can do.

    There’s simply no comparing the GOP and the Dems on this issue.

  • Pardon my ignorance, but who ARE these “pro-life Democrats”? Which of them voted against Obama Care?

  • McCain-Graham wing of the Senate is repugnant and loathsome to me, with its interventionism abroad and disregard for civil liberties at home.

    You need to dial it back.

    The RNC is also staffed by some of the most politically incompetent fools I have ever encountered in all the political history I have ever read.

    A number of years ago, Grover Norquist was asked why Gray Davis, an uninspiring old hack, had managed to get himself the Democratic nomination for Governor of California over a demonstrably capable businessman who had financed an extensive advertising campaign. His response was banal but worth considering, “politics is harder than it looks”. There are people in this world (Daniel Larison comes to mind) who are quite verbose and insistent in telling politicians how to do their jobs (while never themselves having been anywhere near the matrix in which these politicians work). Politicians make bad policy all the time, and often for indefensible reasons, but even well-intentioned are invariably maneuvering in a madcap environment.

  • liberal Catholics – pro-life democrats- libertarian Catholics ? ? ?

    Pro life democrats belong to a party whose officlal party stance is anti life.
    The cognitive dissonance is deafening

  • All right I shouldn’t have thrown libertarian Catholics in there. It veers off the course of this thread… and it depends how libertarian they are. But you get the picture.

  • Names, please – pro-life democrats????? And shame on the bishops who are too cowardly to publicly ex-communicate so-called Catholics legislators who vote for abortion “rights”, and bills that finance Planned Parenthood, and abortion abroad.

  • Even if the pro-life democrats are truly pro-lifers with a steel spine, they are the exception, not the rule. The Democrat party is the party of death. Look at their positions: pro-abortion, pro-infanticide, pro-suicide, pro-euthanasia, pro-narcotics, pro-homosexual unions (death of souls) and on and on.

    You can criticize the Democrats on these issues and not be rah-rah Republican. The GOP has its own score card. While not perfect, it is light years better than the Dems.

  • AD,

    “You need to dial it back.”

    You can expect me to dial it up.

  • “All right I shouldn’t have thrown libertarian Catholics in there.”

    I don’t even know that many self-identified libertarian Catholics. What I do know is that our high-profile representatives – Tom Woods, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Jeffery Tucker, to name three that come to mind – are all traditional pro-life Catholics. You can add me to that list if you like.

  • I think Lew Rockwell is a Catholic too. Not positive though.

  • “Names, please — pro-life democrats???”

    Congressman William Lipinski of IL-3 voted against Obamacare in its final form and specifically cited abortion as his reason for doing so. I believe he was the only Catholic Democrat in Congress to do so. Last I heard he was being considered to replace Doug Kmiec as ambassdor to the Vatican (probably a convienient way of “kicking him upstairs” and filling his seat with a more pliable pro-abort, but we shall see).

  • Joe Donnelly (D-IN) is a good one.

  • Doug Kmiec was ambassador to Malta. No way was he ever going to get the gig at the Vatican. Miguel H. Díaz is the Ambassador to the Holy See.

  • “Joe Donnelly (D-IN) is a good one.”

    we’ll see once there’s an actual related vote

  • Oops, Jay, I really messed that one up. First of all the guy in question is DANIEL Lipinski — William Lipinski is his father who also held the same seat in Congress — and he is in line to replace Miguel Diaz, not Kmiec. (I knew Kmiec was ambassador to some really tiny almost 100% Catholic country over in the Mediterranean, though) 🙂

  • Pro-Life is not simply limited to opposition to abortion. Of course, that is a primary stance. But the Church supports Life from “conception to natural death.” Where are pro-life conservatives in ensuring that the poor and sick have access to life-saving medicine and treatment?

    Where are the pro-life conservatives protecting the Earth (aka, God’s Creation) from wanton ecological destruction? How about when corporations blow off the tops of mountains and pollute streams/rivers with toxic sludge? Human life in those areas become threatened, not enhanced. Pollution is not pro-life.
    ———-

    Site well worth a read:

    Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha Conservation Center

    http://conservation.catholic.org/

    Long before today’s environmental movement,
    the Bible and Tradition of the Catholic Church taught us to be
    stewards of God’s creation with love and wisdom.

  • But the Church supports Life from “conception to natural death.” Where are pro-life conservatives in ensuring that the poor and sick have access to life-saving medicine and treatment?

    All right Ben, what precisely are you doing? Have you started a small business and provided jobs to anyone so that they earn a decent living and have access to health insurance? Have you supported politicians who promote policies aimed at expanding the entrepreneurial class, or do you instead vote for politicians who make lofty claims about providing more welfare benefits? There is a mistaken assumption on the part of left-wing Catholics that social justice is an impersonal government entity handing out taxpayer dollars. THAT isn’t a Catholic position, and I’m tired of people such as yourselves claiming the high moral ground, because the policies people like you support are precisely the policies that keep people beholden to the state, and mired in poverty. Just feeling bad about the poor isn’t actually demonstrating a truly Catholic ethic. No wonder your state is a laughing stock.

    Pollution is not pro-life.

    Mindless sloganeering is not informative.

  • Paul,

    Thanks for saving me the time of responding to Ben (and doing it better than I would have.)

  • “The poor will always be with you.” In St. John’s Gospel Judas complained that the expensive perfume the woman used to anoint Jesus could have been sold and the money used to help the poor. The quote was Jesus’ response to the complant.

    In addition to being pro-life (anti-death penalty, anti-waterboarding, for aerial drone assassination), democrats are “all-in” with the preferential option for the poor.

    In fact, democrats are so strongly preferential for the poor, Federal policies, programs, regulations, and taxes daily are adding thousands to the poverty-stricken category. Since 2009, 75 Americans went on food stamps for each new job created.

    And, their cure for global warming/save Erda: higher fuel prices, higher food prices, more desperately poor people.

  • “Have you supported politicians who promote policies aimed at expanding the entrepreneurial class, or do you instead vote for politicians who make lofty claims about providing more welfare benefits?”

    Some politicians who claim to be doing the former have no qualms about “providing more welfare benefits” of a sort to big businesses in the form of tax breaks and other targeted economic incentives. While these incentives may be well intentioned to “save jobs”, when it gets to the point that large businesses routinely demand these concessions to the tune of millions and threaten to close or move when they don’t get them, then I would say it becomes a “preferential option for the rich, powerful, and well connected” that leaves the small or medium-size business, which doesn’t have the clout to lobby for these tax breaks, holding the bag. If you really want to expand the entrepreneurial class, I suggest lower taxes or other incentives for EVERYONE, not just big business.

  • “Where are the pro-life conservatives protecting the Earth (aka, God’s Creation) from wanton ecological destruction?”

    If far-left economic and social policy were the key to environmental preservation, China and the former Soviet bloc nations would be, or have been, among the cleanest places on Earth. Instead, they are riddled with pollution that dwarfs even the bad old days of the Cuyahoga River catching fire.

  • You’ll get no disagreement from me there, Elaine. Big government and big business usually walk hand-in-hand.

  • when people shift the pro-life topic to a broad definition, what they’re usually saying is they aren’t actually pro-life.

    i like to define things technically, and “pro-life” _does not_ refer to anything outside of abortion obviously. that’s what the term’s used for. these sorts of obfuscations are like when libertarians try to turn “small government” against conservatives and argue for their insane minarchist definition of society. now we could talk about what the Catholic position is/should be on other things but that’s a different topic.

  • JDP,

    Donnelly served 6 years in the House before his election to the Senate. He has a pretty solid pro-life track record:

    http://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/34212/joe-donnelly-sr/2/abortion-issues#.UTVBmTCsiSo

    “when people shift the pro-life topic to a broad definition, what they’re usually saying is they aren’t actually pro-life.”

    Come again?

  • “Donnelly served 6 years in the House before his election to the Senate. He has a pretty solid pro-life track record:”

    Actually he pounded Joe Mansour for thinking that it is terrible to kill a child who is luckless enough to be conceived in rape.

    “I think rape is a heinous and violent crime in every instance,” said Donnelly. “The God I believe in and the God I know most Hoosiers believe in, does not intend for rape to happen—ever. What Mr. Mourdock said is shocking, and it is stunning that he would be so disrespectful to survivors of rape.”

    http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/politics/donnelly-speaks-out-on-mourdock-rape-comment

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/31/ind-dem-donnelly-walks-careful-line-on-abortion/

    We will see how he votes in the Senate.

  • Actually, Donald, what he did is what any other politician would do: capitalize when a political opponent makes a (well-intentioned, but) boneheaded gaffe.

    Donnelly’s exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother are disappointing, but he’s no different in that regard than the majority of Republicans.

    And I have no idea who Joe Mansour is.

  • JL, when someone’s first response to a conversation on this subject is to talk about how pollution, the death penalty, etc. etc. mean select pro-lifers aren’t “really pro-life,” that’s a sign to me that don’t view abortion as a particularly high-priority issue. sure that’s not true for everyone but it’s a common tactic for people who don’t agree with pro-lifers in the first place. furthermore questions of just war, putting criminals to death, enviro. policy, and so on are obviously of a different nature than abortion

    maybe framing things as anti-abortion vs. pro-abortion would make this easier so people don’t play semantic games.

  • JDP,

    I agree with everything you just said in the 8:30 PM comment, but that’s not the same as someone NOT being pro-life.

  • God knows how Richard Mourdock became Joe Mansour in my mind. I think Donnelly leaping on the issue, especially considering the fact that Donnelly has played up throughout his political career that he is a faithful Catholic, betokens a man who will sell out the pro-life cause, and that will make him a typical “pro-life” Democrat. He voted for Obamacare so I expect next to nothing from him in regard to abortion. I hope I will be pleasantly surprised but I doubt it.

  • JDP, exactly. Pro-life is far more than one issue, so it is important to specify what aspect of the matter one is referencing.

    If the GOP was consistently pro-life, which it is not, then it would have a better shot in American elections.

  • “Pro-life is far more than one issue”

    Give me a break. Over a million innocents slain a year and you want to mix up the fight against abortion with your pet green issues!

  • Catholic Answers recently hired an apologist who is really good in explaining the pro-life position. His name is Trent Horn, and I think the best pro-life apologist I’ve heard. The issue of the scope of the pro-life movement was raised during a 2 hour radio show on 1/28/2013. Very much worth a listen.

    http://www.catholic.com/profiles/trent-horn

    The short version is the mission of the pro-life movement is narrow, to secure the right to life for all human beings. Holding the movement accountable for other issues makes as much sense as holding the fireman accountable for finding a home for those whose home has burned down. While these acts outside the primary mission are charitable and worthwhile, they are not the focus of the pro-life movement.

  • “If the GOP was consistently pro-life, which it is not, then it would have a better shot in American elections.”

    some of the things you mentioned as “not pro-life” have more support than the pro-life position. the death penalty for example. so no.

    cool talking points though

  • ok you didn’t mention the death penalty, you mentioned…enviro. regulation and healthcare. which i assume means the GOP must support the exact EPA approach Obama does and support Obamacare as well or it is not “really” pro-life. k.

  • I am torn on the death penalty, though Pope Benedict even called for its global repeal: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-benedict-end-the-death-penalty/

    I know that if some criminal broke into my home, seeking to bring harm to my family, it would be shoot first, and then ask question afterwards. I am no leftist by any standard.

  • It’s not even that the GOP should “follow” Obama. It would be outstanding for the Republican Party to its historic, traditional pro-environment stance. Republicans were the first “green party” in a sense. ConservAmerica (formerly Republicans for Environmental Protection) has been working diligently since 1995 to

    To quote the late, great Russell Kirk, ““Nothing is more conservative than conservation.” Heck, both words share the same root. It is very disappointing how conservatives ceded to the Left what was a traditional, bedrock conservative principle.

  • The natural world and its inhabitants, first and foremost, belong to almighty God. The Bible is absolutely clear in various passages, but I will highlight my favorite. Psalms 24:1: “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein.” Yes, we are granted “dominion” over the planet, but that does not mean “desecration” or “destruction.” I was asked by my parents to watch our home while they went on trips. DId I go and knock down walls and break the windows?

    To go one step further, St. Paul explains that Nature/Creation is evidence FOR God. Romans 1:19-20 – since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

    Destruction of Nature is destruction of God’s Creation. They are inseparable. Humans have to stop acting as if we are superior to God and that we stand outside the Web of Life. We are intimately connected to it all. If you think yourself outside of Nature, then hold your breath and plug your nose and don’t inhale Oxygen.

    God bless.

  • oh snap he referenced Russell Kirk

    game over

  • “Destruction of Nature is destruction of God’s Creation.”

    The problem of the left, the green police, is they confuse consumption with destruction. Human consumption, other than their own of course, is a boil on earth and must be lanced.

    It’s not that they believe they can save earth. They are looking for a pet crisis for which they can justify their authoritarian control and profligate spending.

    The idea the GOP does care about conservation is silly. Review the many green initiatives started under GWB’s watch. Many of the green projects taking place under Obama’s had already begun under GWB’s. No. The GOP has no interest in America’s children drinking poisoned water or hiking on deforested national parks. Stereotype tripe.

Here is What a Pro-Life Democrat Looks Like

Monday, February 13, AD 2012

Dan Lipinski (D.Ill) has always been fiercely pro-life, as was his father Bill Lipinski, a Democrat Congressman from Illinois for decades.  Lipinski voted against ObamaCare and he is not fooled by the President’s fake “compromise”.  Here is his statement on the “compromise”:

I am enormously disappointed by today’s announcement. All the facts indicate that the ‘new’ mandate is the same as the ‘old’ mandate. New words, same policy.
“Our understanding of the new policy is now limited to a Fact Sheet put out by the White House. This document says ‘Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.’ But the health care law says that all employers must provide health insurance for their employees or pay a penalty. And according to the White House these same insurance plans that employers must provide ‘will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.’ So religious organizations have to provide health care coverage from insurance companies that are required to provide abortion drugs, sterilization, and contraception. What changed? This is the same policy.
“We need a rule that protects religious liberty by allowing employers to provide health insurance coverage that does not include abortion drugs and other services that violate their conscience and religious doctrine. Instead we got a so-called compromise that is no compromise at all and provides no options for those with profound religious and moral objections to providing these services. To say that the insurer and not the employer is required to provide the coverage is a fiction. There is no accommodation for religious liberty. The rule remains coercive and still violates the long-standing tradition of protection for conscience rights in federal law.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Here is What a Pro-Life Democrat Looks Like

  • He looks fine. Haven’t heard any around this neck of the woods which is rife with higher education and closing churches.

  • I still don’t get the request for a religious exemption. Why should only religious organizations be exempt from violating their consciences, while non-religious organizations (who may share the exact same religious principle) are required to do so?

    If you don’t like the coverage your employer is giving you, get a different job or buy the coverage on your own. What ever happened to the “if you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one” mantra. What about “if you want an abortion, pay for it yourself?” Oh yeah, it only works one way.

  • “Future Democrats will be as ashamed of their support of abortion as they are today
    for their support, as a party, of slavery”.

    I truly hope we see that day dawn. However, I would note that the Democrats have yet
    to issue any sort of mea culpa for their support, as a party, for slavery, for Jim
    Crow, or for support of the Klan. Rather, they have simply thrust such inconvenient and
    shameful facts down the memory hole. They appear to be embarrassed, yes. But
    ashamed? No.

    On the dawning of that glorious day when abortion is universally condemned, I rather
    think the Democrats will proclaim that they were against it all along, and trust in the
    public’s short attention span.

  • If he endorses Obama in November, all his pro-lfe rhetroic is meaningless.

  • Disagree Greg. Obama stands as much of chance of being beaten in Illinois, due to the Chicago incubus, as he does of being elected Pope. A pro forma endorsement by Lipiniski under those circumstances is truly meaningless. On the other hand his constant attacks against Obama on abortion, ObamaCare and the HHS Mandate are important, since they are coming from within the Democrat party, and from a Congressman in Obama’s own home state. I have been very hard on Democrats who pay mere lip service to being pro-life, and that is not the case with Lipinski.

  • See? There is such a thing as a pro-life Democrat. Even if just one, it’s more than zero.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • It’s great that Lipinski is pro-life, but I’ve heard a rumor that he’s also pro-gay-marriage. I hope it’s not true. Does anyone know for sure? Please say it ain’t so!

  • He voted for the Stupak amendment which provided for aborting rape/incest babies. And which enabled Obamacare. Not prolife in my book.

    Don’t tell me Chris Smith did same. He also says Christie is prolife and he’s got rape/incest exceptions too.

    Lipinski was just lucky his vote wasn’t needed to put Ocare over the top – the dems counted carefully and excused every dem that had done duty on other fronts.

  • “Not prolife in my book.”
    Yes, but strongly pro-life in this frame of reality.

    “excused every dem that had done duty on other fronts.”

    Rubbish. Lipinski has been outspokenly pro-life since he got into Congress and his votes have matched his speech. I am very cynical about pro-life Democrats, since almost all of them, like Stupak, crumbled under pressure. Lipinski has not.

  • I don’t understand how anyone can be against abortion but be a member of the pro-abortion party. Things have to make sense and that doesn’t make sense. Catholics who go to Sunday Mass and stand to profess their faith in which they say they believe “in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,” and stand again and pray the Our Father where they pray for God’s “will be done on earth and (they be)delivered from evil” have to have something wrong with them if they turn around and give their name identification and votes to the pro-abortion party? What? Do they think God creates life for it to be aborted? Is God in contradiction with himself, or are Catholics who are Democrats? Fifty-four percent of Catholics who voted in 2008, voted to elect the first pro-abortion, pro-infanticide President ever! Things have to make sense, or there is something wrong. Such Catholics don’t make sense, and there is something seriously wrong with our country because of this President and those Catholics who elected him.

  • I am a committed, prayerful and very active Catholic. I have had the honor of voting in the past three presidential elections, since becoming a citizen. I must say that I have voted for members of both parties, and that I cannot in good conscience label the Democratic party as the “abortion” party, any more than I can label the Republican party the “death-penalty, white-collar-crime, feed the rich” party. Both parties have policy stances that are horribly devaluing of life. I feel that we do the debate a great disservice when we rely on cheap labels and branding instead of engaging each other in the meaningful but challenging dialogue.

    As long as we allow ourselves to remain stuck in the cheap politics of labeling and insulting, we will never lift our country to a true life-affirming culture, no matter which party is in office. As long as members of either party see defending themselves and their part as the only option, they will never engage in authentic dialogue . . . which is the only action that has the capacity to move hearts and minds.

    I pray for an end to abortion. I pray for an end to poverty and the increasing wealth gap. I pray to an end for the corporate greed that has dehumanized so many. I pray for an end to the military machine that has killed so many. I pray for an end to the divisiveness that has devalued so many.

  • @RAS
    “I must say that I have voted for members of both parties, and that I cannot in good conscience label the Democratic party as the ‘abortion’ party….”

    And why is that, RAS? The Democrat Party supports the Roe v Wade decision that ended any state restrictions against the medical procedure of abortion. The Democrat Party Platform supports abortion-on-demand remaining the-law-of-the-land for over 37 years. The overwhelming number of Democrat elected officials at all levels of government are pro-abortion. Every Supreme Court nomination by a Democrat President since Roe v. Wade has been supportive of the Roe v Wade decision. And Democrat Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committees have attacked any Republican Supreme Court nominee suspected of being supportive of overturning Row v. Wade and have voted against almost every one of them. The Democrat Party is not ashamed of their support for murdering unborn babies. And this President we now have, thanks to 54% of Catholic voters, is even on record as being supportive of infanticide if a baby happens to survive his or her abortion. So, I don’t understand how you can deny that the Democrat Party is the pro-abortion party. The Democrat Party opposes a Right To Life Constitutional Amendment. You shouldn’t feel uncomfortable voting for Democrats, of which I used to be one until they became the pro-abortion party and I left them because I didn’t want to become a hypocritical Catholic. In other words, I believe what I profess and pray for in Sunday Mass and that is more important to me than thinking I am “morally superior” to those other people in that other party that you mentioned. By the way, what intrinsic evil is committed by the “prudential judgment” issues you attributed to that other party? In fact, which of them are even sins?

Where's Stupak?

Monday, May 3, AD 2010

Hattiip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. Representative Joe Pitts (R. Pa) has introduced a new bill that bans abortion funding from ObamaCare.  It largely replicates the language of the old Stupak Amendment.  The bill has 57 co-sponsors and growing.  Thus far these real pro-life Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors:  Reps. Travis Childers of Mississippi, Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Tim Holden of Pennsylvania, Dan Lipinski of Illinois, Jim Marshall of Georgia, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina and Gene Taylor of Mississippi.  I salute each of them.  Each of them voted against the final pro-abort version of ObamaCare.  Bart Stupak and his “pro-life” Democrats who hid behind the fig leaf of the meaningless executive order in order to vote for ObamaCare, are of course not supporting this legislation.  I think this is significant.  ObamaCare passed.  From the perspective of a truly pro-life Democrat who supported ObamaCare, why not amend the law now to ban abortion funding?  Failure to support this legislation should finish the idea that such a Democrat  in Congress is in any sense pro-life.  This legislation should of course be a major voting issue for all pro-lifers in November

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Where's Stupak?

  • Don’t hold your breath on this one, Don.

  • Agreed Jay! 🙂

  • What concerns me is the total lack of concern by the USCCB bishops regarding all the other anti-Catholic (subsidiarity etc.)trash wrapped up in Obamacare.

    If I didn’t know better…

    And why was it that one of the three official bishops who finally (only after their joining Stupak allowed it to leave committee with an apparent imprimature) ended up opposing the bill was titled the “migrant” bishop? I thought it was about abortion not border issues? But then the Catechchism tells us that the laity is to decide upon immigration questions. And then there’s the silence about the death panels – the theft of (1/2 trillion) money for the health and care of the medicare class. I’ll never understand why the state (Caesar) is the first choice of these religion trained people. I also failed to hear a large USCCB protest when Obama suggested taking the tax benifit away from private charity economically forcing charity to become controlled by (Caesar)government’s business. Didn’t they ever hear John Paul’s admonition to be wary of the welfare state?

    There are far too many unanswered questions about the construct and motives of this group. Millions of dollars in street money collected for the poor given by them to ACORN to help elect the most aggressively pro-abortion/infanticide president in history needs a serious investigation -not just an “oopps -sorry.” That didn’t work with the priest coverup and wont with the politics. And then there’s Notre Dame -the moral/political scandal of the decade?

  • Not that I have time, during lunch, to decrypt that mess…
    I’ll presume that someone who reads for a living has read it and thinks it would at least limit federal funding on abortions and provide abortion-free options for Catholics.
    That said, let’s return to the “myth” of the pro-life Democrat.

    If you have a couple of million in your bank account and heart, swelled with civic duty, perhpas you might think Congress or the Senate, or your state versions are the place yu can “do the most good.” So far, so-so.
    If you have swallowed whole the notion that Jesus will be mollified, during the promised Matthew 25 test at the conclusion of this life, by your demonstrated williingness to reach into the pockets of others to fund the many do-gooder programs that come up for a vote during your tenure; thereby sacrificing subsidiarity and free will on the altar of ever-dubious government largesse. If this is you, you obviously opt to run as a Democrat, albeit a conscientious “pro-life Democrat, and caucus with your party of choice- in order to do the most good with OPM.
    So, by the very fact that you win, go to DC, caucus with your fellow travelers, you help insure that it will be they who control the committees, they who elect the speaker of the house, they who set the table for the legislative agenda that will cause acts to land on the desk of the POTUS- and they who orchestrate any attempts to override irresponsible vetos by the Abortionist-in-Chief.
    So how was it you were going to do good without materially contributing to the expansion or continuance of the evil of taxpayer funded abortion (not just here- remember Mexico City)?

  • Call me crazy, but I would rather Rep. Joe Pitts walk up to these men and women and seriously engage them and try to win their votes.

    What’s more important? Verbal condemnation or their votes and not funding abortions? I’m not suggesting writing things off as if there is not an issue at all. But I think the order of business puts stopping abortion funding first and I happen to think some of the Democrats who voted for the bill would vote for this legislation if it hit the floor. Granted that they voted for the health care bill, I don’t think they are now pro-choice extremists no different than Pelosi.

    But in another sense — this legislation is dead until at least next January. I could see it (by a stretch of the imagination) passing in the House if it made it out of committee somehow and failing in the Senate.

  • Eric, I would love it if Stupak and some of the other Democrats who voted for ObamaCare would sign on to the bill. As Jay indicated above however, I am definitely not holding my breath.

Far Better Than Nothing

Tuesday, March 23, AD 2010

While pro-lifers, conservatives, and conservative pro-lifers all have different reasons for not being very pleased with Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats at the moment, because of their caving in to the Senate Bill abortion language and Obama’s vaporware executive order, I think it’s worth keeping in mind that if all Democrats were of the Obama/Pelosi persuasion in regards to abortion, we would undoubtedly have a “health care reform” bill which provided complete subsidies for abortion on demand for poor women, if not all women. The Senate language is not nearly as good as Stupak’s, and even with Stupak’s language included I think that the bill would have been deeply irresponsible for financial reasons. But let’s face it, the Democrats have a solid majority in the House and had until Brown’s election a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Without some Democrats breaking ranks with their party’s hard core pro-abortion platform, there would have been no way for the pro-life movement to keep the most extreme support for abortion possible out of the bill.

And while Stupak’s last minute flake-out is disappointing from a pro-life perspective (if he’d stuck to his guns, I would have happily donated to his re-election fund, simple because I admire steadfastness to pro-life principle, even in someone I disagree with on other issues) let’s also be honest about this: Those of us who retain a belief in fiscal responsibility and oppose statism would have been disappointed in the health care bill passing even with Stupak’s language. So while I admired his apparent steadfastness to pro-life principle, I like many other conservatives also appreciated that fact that his principle (had he stuck to it) would have resulted in the bill not passing. We can hardly be surprised that he didn’t share such a hope.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Far Better Than Nothing

  • I never confused Stupak with a conservative. I did confuse Stupak with a pro-lifer. My mistake. I also confused him with a truthful man. Once again my mistake. The fact that his cave in led to ObamaCare becoming a law I regard as a national disaster. That Stupak revealed himself as a man of no principle I regard as a tragedy. He was a hero to pro-lifers everywhere and he revealed himself at the end to be anything but.

  • Darwin, I applaud your charitable attitude and posting, and I agree with it, for the most part, even from the depths of my disappointment. What really makes it unpalatable for me to be charitable to Stupak was the disgusting slap in the face that was his House floor speech during the motion to recommit on Sunday evening. I genuinely believe that he lost it temporarily, on an emotional and psychological level, when he declared that the Democrats were the pro-life party protecting life from unborn till death. That speech was so contrary to reality in its claims that I can’t imagine he’ll look on that speech in the future with anything but deep shame and guilt.

  • “What really makes it unpalatable for me to be charitable to Stupak was the disgusting slap in the face that was his House floor speech during the motion to recommit on Sunday evening.”

    Ditto, Kevin. What a disgraceful display that was. He was doing a victory dance with salt-coated shoes over freshly-opened wounds. It was despicable.

  • I wrote a (small) check to Stupak’s Republican challenger, Dan Benishek, on Sunday night. Benishek is a UP surgeon who seems a decent man – a pro-life conservative, the son of a miner. But I confess, on Sunday night I would have mailed a check to Mr. Ed if he was running against Stupak. Better a talking horse than the horse’s patoots that populate Congress now.

    Speaking of horse’s patoots, our elected reps are now debating this:

    Shouldn’t Obamacare provide Viagra for sex offenders. After all people who’ve “paid their debt to society” shouldn’t continue to be punished by using health care as a weapon. Believe it or not the issue is being debated in the Senate, because unless sex offenders are specifically excluded, they’ll get Viagra too.

  • I wish the other side in this debate could come up with statements as thoughtful and charitable as this one. The honest truth is that most people who supported the Stupak language really did not want to see this bill passed–for many reasons, some better than others. Stupak always made it clear that he did want it to pass because he sees universal government-controlled health care as an example of what government should be doing. It’s interesting too to see what he thinks government should NOT be doing: in that under-the-radar vote on the war in Afghanistan a few days ago, Stupak voted against the war.

  • “But I confess, on Sunday night I would have mailed a check to Mr. Ed if he was running against Stupak. Better a talking horse than the horse’s patoots that populate Congress now.”

    Brilliant Donna!

  • How badly were we gamed by this man? (And I say “we” because I too was under the impression that Stupak was a man of integrity, although I was against the healthcare bill for other reasons besides abortion.)

    “Stupak Defends District’s Planned Parenthood Clinics”

    PICKET: Then how come you didn’t vote for Pence’s amendment to de-fund Planned Parenthood back in 2009?

    STUPAK: I don’t think I ever voted to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood does not do abortions…in my district. Planned Parenthood has a number of clinics in my district that provide health care for my people. Therefore, these clinics do quite well in my district, and I’m all for health care and extending it to everybody–access to health care, so that’s just another way. Also on Planned Parenthood , when they do it, there is a segregation of funds that go with it. It’s usually about four hundred million they tried to de-fund on Planned Parenthood. Maybe this time, I’ll look at it again if Pence brings it up. Maybe I’ll vote differently this time, but you’re right I did vote against it.

    Stupak also says, in practically the same breath:

    I’ve done all I could as one member to protect the sanctity of life

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/mar/23/stupak-defends-districts-planned-parenthood/

  • You know what, I’m sick of these defenses of Backstabbing Bart.

    Ron, I’m not going off on you personally – I like a lot of your comments on issues – but you’ve raised a couple of points here that I’ve seen OTHER people I typically like and respect bring up in Stupid’s defense as well.

    “The honest truth is that most people who supported the Stupak language really did not want to see this bill passed”

    I suppose it could be the case that there are people who were in denial about the whole thing. But most people I know who supported the Stupak language did so for one or both of these reasons:

    1) If Obamacare was determined to become law, AT LEAST the restrictions of the Hyde Amendment would stay in place. Stupak’s precious EO offers no such guarantees, and his speech during the debate following the vote was delusional.

    2) If the Stupak language was a part of the bill this time around, at least 40 rabidly pro-abortion Democrats in the House would have voted no, killing the bill. That’s why I supported it. And I see no reason to be ashamed of it. There’s nothing wrong with that motive.

    “Stupak always made it clear that he did want it to pass because he sees universal government-controlled health care as an example of what government should be doing.”

    But he also told us all that he wouldn’t vote for a bill that allowed public funding of abortion. And yet he did. So either he’s monumentally stupid for putting enough faith in this EO nonsense to change his vote – and we have a right to be angry with him for that alone – or he knew full well that this EO promise was weak, but it gave him just enough so that he could vote yes, to take the pressure off, to not be hated by everyone in his own party, or whatever.

    Stupak portrayed himself as a leader, as a fighter, as a man of principle. At the last hour he caved for a handful of magic beans that offers no guarantee of the things that he was so intransigent about for all these months.

    Stupidity or weakness, take your pick, either way, he deserves our contempt.

  • “Shouldn’t Obamacare provide Viagra for sex offenders. After all people who’ve “paid their debt to society” shouldn’t continue to be punished by using health care as a weapon. Believe it or not the issue is being debated in the Senate, because unless sex offenders are specifically excluded, they’ll get Viagra too.”

    Donna,

    I understand the Parliamentary tactic they are playing, but I have to wonder why Viagra or any similar prescription drug is covered by a health plan. Why would the cost of a recreational drug be paid by a health care plan. If Viagra isn’t a recreational drug nothing is. This thought struck me as odd a few years ago when I heard on CNBC (IIRC) that GM was the single largest purchaser of Viagra because of their retiree health care plan. What??? Up until that moment I naively believed people spent their own money on crap like that.

    That is the sad punch line to this horrendous health care “reform” bill. Some people actually believe it will not exceed the cost estimates without considering how much health care can be consumed once it is “free.” How many people will sign up for Viagra or a hundred other medical treatments that they would not if personally paying for it themselves.

  • Largebill: exactly. But that’s government and the entitlement mentality for you. Contrary to leftist belief, no conservative I know argues that the present system needs no reforming or that uninsured people should be left to die in the street.

    But this changes everything and drags the government into everything touching on healthcare issues. It’s one thing to help pay for people who, say, have lost coverage because they were laid off and have serious health conditions. But paying for somebody’s Viagra? Someone who sees Viagra as an entitlement? They’ve got to be joking – except they’re not.

    (Not to mention the disgust I feel at having to foot the bill for somebody’s abortion…)

  • I think you guys are getting a little off track here. I’m no fan of this bill, and I get the idea that’s setting you off about the Viagra, but I think it’s wrong headed. I’m sure some people use Viagra to enable themselves to do things they shouldn’t be doing, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not a drug that should be covered by insurance. We’re Catholics, not Puritans or Stoics. As Catholics we view intimacy between spouses as a great good, even a necessary condition for their marriage and their souls. If someone’s plumbing stops working, that is a medical issue, and thankfully something has been developed that can help people get around the condition. There’s absolutely no reason to object to the use of such medicine or that it would be covered by medical insurance.

    Oh, and lest you think this says something about my condition – my plumbing still works fine, thank you. 😉 Still, nobody knows what’s going to happen in the future to any of us, and a drug like can help marriages stay strong and that keeps families together, and even saves souls.

  • If the Stupak language was a part of the bill this time around, at least 40 rabidly pro-abortion Democrats in the House would have voted no, killing the bill.

    I’m not sure this is plausible. After all, the original House bill passed despite having the Stupak language in it.

  • “[L]et’s also be honest about this: Those of us who retain a belief in fiscal responsibility and oppose statism would have been disappointed in the health care bill passing even with Stupak’s language.”

    Huh? I’m shocked.

    So what does it matter if we’d all be disappointed anyway? Is that the sum of it?

    Evidently the intrinsically evil nature of abortion escapes you. Please let me clarify. Children born into a bankrupt dictatorship (worst case scenarios, both, for fiscal responsibility and statism) are still born. They have the chance to live and breathe and giggle and laugh and clap their hands.

    Children killed by an state funded abortion don’t enjoy any of that. They’re dead before they could draw their first breath of air, before they could look upon their mother and father, before they could so much as eat and sigh and sleep.

    I would much, much, much rather I lived in a country that financially impoverished itself with a crazy healthcare bill (i.e. giving viagra to criminals) than one that morally bankrupted itself by using my taxes to kill babies.

    Further — you write ‘So while I admired his apparent steadfastness to pro-life principle, I like many other conservatives also appreciated that fact that his principle (had he stuck to it) would have resulted in the bill not passing. We can hardly be surprised that he didn’t share such a hope.’

    ‘[H]ope?’ Yeah, right. Sorry, but you have to swallow a whole lot to not recognize that he held out so as to sell his vote more dearly. That or he just doesn’t comprehend the nature of abortion, the nature of evil.

    Please let me translate your equivalence into practical terms — well, the bill is just going to pass anyway (i.e. they’ll kill the babies anyway), so I might as well vote for it (participate in an intrinsically evil act) (and condemn my soul to hell for all of eternity).

    Do you see what you’ve written? Do you understand my perspective?

  • BA,

    It is what they pledged to do after the first time it passed.

    http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/letter-from-house-dems-pledging-to-vote-against-bill-with-stupak/

    And they were threatening to do it all the way up until the day of the vote.

    http://www.valuesvoternews.com/2010/03/stupak-deal-fails-as-pro-choice.html

    I don’t know why they settled for it the first time around, but evidently they changed their minds.

    I read reports of some pro-abort female House Dems breaking down into tears after the first vote because of Stupak.

  • Joe,

    They settled for it the first time around because they very openly expected that after the Senate passed its version, that provision would be stripped out of the final bill in conference.

    Brown taking Kennedy’s Senate seat derailed those plans.

  • Joe,

    Talk is cheap. Stupak was also pledging to vote against the bill if he didn’t get his way until the day before the vote.

  • Joe,

    But here’s the thing, while many of us who opposed the bill in its entirity (while also wanting to have it be as anti-abortion as possible if we had to swallow the bitter bill at all) Stupak clearly thought the bill itself was a good thing so long as it didn’t fund abortion.

    I’m guessing that this massively pissed Stupak off, and was one of his prime motivating factors in that bitter floor speech.

    I disagree with him and think he’s wrong in seeing those of us on the conservative side of the pro-life movement as the bad guys in this. But I can see why he was becoming increasingly angry with his position — feeling like he was being used by people who opposed the bill regardless.

  • I think you’re right Darwin. I also think part of the problem is that we thought Stupak was standing for something more than what he was standing for. We thought he was for this bill other than the abortion issue – and not without reason – by his own words we had it that as much as he wanted HCR passed, abortion was a non-starter and the Senate bill didn’t pass the test, plus the Senate bill was bad legislation and the means by which it came was unacceptible.

    He generated a lot of goodwill from pro-lifers from most political persuasions and they admired his principled stand. In hindsight, we discovered he was indeed fighting to get abortion provisions out of the legislation, but it wasn’t that important to him where he wouldn’t still vote for it. Many of his supporters feel betrayed by him and he feels betrayed by his supporters. It’s actually quite understandable. I think he’s wrong to have done a 180 the Senate bill, or to think the EO satisfies any concerns, or to think that abortion shouldn’t be a deal breaker for Obamacare, but his equation is different. Aside from those understandable differences, his speech at the time of the vote and subsequent comments take it to a different level. A level where it’s difficult to respect him in spite of those differences and reveal a rather bitter partisan bordering on the delusional.

  • Stupak led the most successful pro-life insurgency within the Democratic Party in recent memory. Nobody expected his amendment to pass with the support it did, and pro-choice organizations reacted with horror that a new front was opening within their stronghold.

    His amendment was dead in the Senate though. His insurgency failed.

    A man in Stupak’s position can’t afford to appear totally uncompromising all of the time.

    But he extracted a concession from the President, which can help hold Obamacare accountable. He also helped his party by allowing Pelosi to give vulnerable Democrats the chance to vote “no.” (She likely had enough votes in reserve, but because of the pro-life Dems she didn’t have to use them.)

    Here’s some comments from the end of Stupak’s Sunday press conference that have been under-reported:

    “…the statutory language, we’d love to have it. But we can’t get it through the Senate. And we’re not giving up. If there was something we missed, we’re coming back with legislative fixes. These right-to-life Democrats, who really carried the right-to-life ball throughout this whole debate, we will continue to do that. We will work with our colleagues to get the job done.”

    In my view, Stupak cut his losses while raising the profile of pro-life Democrats and getting Obama to commit to something. He can be held accountable too.

    The speed with which many pro-lifers turned on him is disturbing to me. If there were more Democrats like him, he would have won. But he lost, and so he tried to lose in a manner most advantageous to his cause and to his career. I think he deserves gratitude for that failed attempt, and criticism of him has gone overboard. The Senate and those who excluded the Stupak Amendment from the Senate bill bear far more blame, as do the Catholic groups whose misinformation sapped his coalition’s strength at a critical time.

    If the GOP’s incompetence and the Hispanicization of America have barred Republicans from Congressional majorities for the foreseeable future, Stupak & co. are the best hope for the pro-life cause in Congress. Don’t punish a man who stood up for months against his party leadership and activists. Punish the leadership and the activists, so that that man won’t have to surrender again in the future.

  • BA,

    Evidently the House leadership and the White House assigned a higher value to that cheap talk than you do – it’s the main reason why they cooked up this EO nonsense to begin with. They had to please their own first, and then try to rope in Stupak. It shouldn’t have worked, but it did, because of the weakness of one man.

    Darwin,

    Frankly, I don’t give a damn about his feelings. This bill will fund abortion, and I maintain that he was either a fool or a coward for accepting the empty promises of an EO from Obama, the most pro-abortion president in American history.

  • Though to be fair, all this really does is reduce Stupak to the level of an average politician, whereas before, we had reason to believe he was at least trying to be a decent human being.

  • Evidently the House leadership and the White House assigned a higher value to that cheap talk than you do – it’s the main reason why they cooked up this EO nonsense to begin with.

    They cooked up the EO nonsense to get Stupak’s vote, not the votes of pro-choicers, who they already had.

  • There were 23 Democrats who voted for the Stupak Amendment and voted against the Senate “reconciliation” bill on Sunday. 23, out of 253. 9%.

    175 out of 177 Republicans voted for the Stupak Amendment and against the reconciliation bill. That’s 99%.

    Remember those percentages the next time someone tells you that the GOP isn’t really pro-life, that Scott Brown and Rudy Giuliani prove that the Republicans are secretly pro-abortion, that the Democratic Party is moderate on life issues, that there’s really no difference between the parties at all.

  • BA,

    The EO was all they had left to offer Stupak once they satisfied the pro-choicers.

    Though I don’t have the link saved (darn it), Pelosi was going to allow another vote on the Stupak amendment until the radical pro-choice Dems threatened to vote no if it passed – which, like the first time around, it would have. This was in the news. I remember reading it and thinking that it would be great.

    But after the radical pro-abort Dems renewed their threat, Pelosi et. al. had to deny Stupak another vote. But they still needed his vote on the bill – hence the EO. Garbage!

November 2009, Stupak Never Intended to Vote No on ObamaCare

Monday, March 22, AD 2010

Last November during a town hall meeting near the Upper Peninsula Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan, an alleged “pro-lifeDemocrat that recently voted for government funding of abortion, made it clear that he was never going to vote “No” on ObamaCare.

Biretta tip to Sydney Carton and Alicia Colon.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to November 2009, Stupak Never Intended to Vote No on ObamaCare

  • From the Weekly Standard:

    The GOP is now offering its motion to recommit: the Stupak-Pitts amendment which passed the House 240 to 194 in November to ban abortion-funding. If it passes, the bill will have to go back to the Senate for approval, which means at least 25 Democrats will flip-flop on their previous vote on Stupak.

    Stupak is now urging fellow members to vote it down.

    Update: The Stupak amendment fails 199 to 232.

  • “The American Catholic”? Really? So you are American first, and Catholic second? Or what?

  • Yeah, and as Roman Catholic, I’m Roman first and Catholic second. Yeesh.

    You guys should have named this blog The Catholics Who Live in the United States of of America, Don’t Really Hate it, and Aren’t Self-loathing. Not that some would appreciate it, but you’d be denying them juvenile semantic plays.

  • I’m pretty sure I heard about this at the time. Wasn’t it excused by some pro-life leaders (or maybe his spokesman) as a necessary profession of open-mindedness?

    In his defense, a man in Stupak’s position can’t afford to appear totally uncompromising all of the time.

    I am disappointed that so little came out of the Stupak fight. He fought and lost but wouldn’t commit political suicide over it.

    How can pro-lifers limit the damage and strengthen a bipartisan pro-life coalition for the future? If Stupak had real help in the Senate, for instance, he would have had less need to compromise.

    (Juvenile semanticism should often be deleted to stop tangents. Don’t feed the pedants.)

  • I think I remember reading that Stupak is Catholic.

    That being said, and given the smart-mouth remarks previously posted, I would guess that Stupak’s label would best be a “Democrat Catholic” in regards to his way of voting. Political Party man first, God’s second.

  • No one has worked harder than Mr. Stupak to protect the unborn throughout this whole process. No one… not one Republican, not any bishop. I love the Church. I am 100% Catholic, by God’s grace. I am particularly concerned with the plight of the unborn. I think that Mr. Stupak is very sincere and his conscience is clean before God. He and his fellow pro-life democrats have been the voice of reason in this debate. Both pro-abortion Dems and anti-health care reform Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. Neither group has taken account of the poor and downtrodden

  • Patrick,

    If he was sincere, he would’ve voted “no” on the final bill.

  • It puzzles me that he held out for so long to only give in to a worthless piece of paper. Not to be all conspiratorial, but my feelings are that this was done intentionally by the Democratic leadership in order to buy themselves more time. They did not have the support of those on the far left (i.e. Kucinich) who wanted a strong public option and/or a single payer system. So, in order to garner the support of the severe leftists, they made it sound as if there were pro-life democrats who were holding out.

    The thing is: there is no such thing as a pro-life democrat.

  • When given the chance to support his own amendment, Representative Bart Stupak described it as “cynical”.

  • Mr. Stupak straddled two logs, upholding the great tradition of political BS in this cgreat country. He milked the pro-life folks and it is concievable that he was not sorry he lost the vote there. His vote on the Medical reform bill no longer mattered. He was free to abstain in accord with his professed “conscience” or again vote negative on the Reform Bill. To vote for the Bill truly stinks since it allows him to straddle both sides of the debate which in turn allows him to advance his own personal poliltical agenda from the pro-life folks was well as from the abortion folks. A true Solomonic/Satanic choice. He didn’t save the baby, so he cut the baby in half!

  • FYI: Cheboyan is in the lower peninsula of Michigan. Oh yeah, Stupak sucks.

  • Another politician that bears all the traits to be in the Congress of the USA. 1. Liar 2. Cheat 3. favors genocide(abortion). If the Government were serious about health they could make it free for every American (legal) and stop giving away our tax dollars to themselves and foreign countries that are against every thing that we stand for. YOU DO THE MATH……

  • Will,

    Thanks for pointing that out.

    I’m not a Michigander, but it sure is close to U.P.

  • The question I have is this. Did Richard Doerflinger who led the last minute rush to include the Stupak amendment in the House bill know about this, did Nat’l Right to Life know about this. Where has this been. Why are we just know getting it!!!!!!

  • If the Bishops knew about this and if Nat’l Right to life knew about this at the time the Stupak amendment was put in the House bill, then our own Bishops and our own Right to Life groups have betrayed us!!!!!

  • To Patrick:
    Charity for the poor and downtrodden is a good thing. But only if it’s FREE WILL VOLUNTARY! The entire governmental welfare system is corrupt as it is never moral to forcibly take from one person, even if the intent is to give to another person for a “good” intention. The original theft negates any possible “good.” Taxes should only go to things that have equal possible use for everyone, i.e. police, fire protection, infrastructure, etc., never to force anyone to give even one dime to another for nothing in return. Theft by “majority rule” is still theft. All government forced wealth transfer is immoral, period, whether for “health care” or anything else.

  • Stupak went through months of hell from pro-abortion advocates, gets a concession from a politician like Obama, and now he gets this vituperation from people who were singing his praises days before?

    He lost in the Senate and had no good options, supporting his party gave him an opening to fight another day. Pelosi already had votes in reserve, but Stupak just helped out his threatened fellow Democrats who were allowed to vote no. That’s how you advance in a party.

    Stupak has pledged to go back and fix things if it is necessary:

    During the press conference announcing his last hour support for the bill, Stupak said: “the statutory language, we’d love to have it. But we can’t get it through the Senate. And we’re not giving up. If there was something we missed, we’re coming back with legislative fixes. These right-to-life Democrats, who really carried the right-to-life ball throughout this whole debate, we will continue to do that. We will work with our colleagues to get the job done.”

    If he really were only a craven opportunist, he would have abandoned his pro-life fight long ago. His situation is ugly, and the EO is almost useless, but he got more done than if he had just followed the party leadership.

    His months of fighting was a show of loyalty to the pro-life cause. Doesn’t he deserve pro-lifers’ critical loyalty rather than critical rejection?

  • “Doesn’t he deserve pro-lifers’ critical loyalty rather than critical rejection?”

    No. He caved and settled for a useless fig leaf to hide his abject surrender. He deserves all the scorn he is reaping. I regret every positive word I wrote about Stupak. In the final analysis making his peace with his party was more important to him than the pro-life cause.

  • @ Jim S.

    “The development of peoples depends, above all, on a recognition that the human race is a single family working together in true communion, not simply a group of subjects who happen to live side by side.”

    (Words given by Pope Benedict XVI in Caritas in Veritate.)

    If you ask around I believe you will find that your consideration of paying taxes as theft and thus a moral evil incapable of bearing any good to be very isolated and unacceptable to 99% of people(including Christ Himself see: Mt 22:17-23)

    You mentioned charity, but reduced it to government run almsgiving. Upon further reflection I hope you find that charity is much more dynamic than you propose (see 1 Cor 13 for example).

    As Catholic followers of Christ we should look to HIM and not to figures like Rush Limbaugh for answers. Christ is our model. See how he had compassion on the multitudes and fed them (Mt.15:32), taught them (Mk. 6:34)and yes, healed them of their infirmities (Mt 14:14; 20:34; 1:41; etc… He gave His very life for us and has asked us to do the same (Mt 16:24).

    St John asks: “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?” (1Jn. 3:17)

    True charity, a real love of our brothers, is the priviledge and the gift given by God to us. Social Darwinist, ultra-conservative “Christians” may very well find themselves in the same predicament as the rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day, oblivious of the righteous man Lazarus sitting outside his door. (Lk 16:19-31).

  • I missed the part in the Gospels Patrick where Christ decreed that it was the duty of Caesar to take care of the poor. Statist attempted solutions of taking care of the poor have an abysmal track record. Christians have a duty to care for the poor personally. I do not think we have a duty to have the State confiscate funds from taxpayers under the pretext of caring for the poor.

  • Duh. The Catholic faithful haave suffered enough while the Church goes chasing after socialis progressive ideals. I suggest you read the history of Marx, Lennin and Saul Alinsky

  • “Doesn’t he deserve pro-lifers’ critical loyalty rather than critical rejection?”

    I think Stupak deserves our forgiveness and prayers, but not our loyalty. My prayers go out to both Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak for I think both of them have consciences and are suffering and perhaps even condemning themselves more than we are condemning them. They are both casualties, and Lord only knows of all the other casualties due to the tactics used by Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al. The problem therein lies within me as my heart tells me that there is unconscionable evil abounding in Washington in the form of Obama and Pelosi, those who will continue exploiting others for their own selfish ends, yes, even the perhaps noble motions of Stupak. Once Stupak examined his very ignoble acquiescence of yesterday followed by drinking and partying, one would hope his disillusionment set in about the deal he had just struck. Pelosi and Obama, however, seem to be stuck in perpetual happiness with themselves, totally. We are told to pray for their conversion, but would it do any good? As C.S. Lewis said, “should they be confirmed forever in their present happiness, should they continue for all eternity to be perfectly convinced that the laugh is on their side?” I detected no mocking tone or cavalier attitude in Stupak’s interview today, but perhaps confusion. It is not his intent, nor Ben Nelson’s, to eliminate undesirable elements of society. But what is the intent of our most pro-abort President ever, who would deny medical care to a still-alive aborted fetus, and the 100-percent NARAL rated Pelosi, who voted against the ban on partial birth abortion? I cannot fathom the evil that lurks in their hearts and souls.

  • Read the reply list and you will soon recognize the problem. We are much closer to Anarchy than we are to Socialism. Stupak is playing his own game (anarchy) just like all other congressmen do. Read some history about other empires and how they failed. You need not be a scholar to figure it out. The United States and the Catholic Church needs to step back and look at the one thing that creates good and rejects evil. It is called UNITY. Remember the Trinity?

  • The cynicism is overwhelming. We won’t even allow a matter of days to play out before we cast our stones at Mr. Stupak, who has probably spent the last few weeks and months agonizing over how to do the right thing in the midst of this complex and relatively poor political system. I am amazed that we already feel the authority to judge not only his actions, but his culpability. Time will tell what the fruit of his labors will be, and may we pray that those fruits will be the preservation of many lives; yet, no amount of time will ever reveal to us the inner thoughts or intentions of a man’s heart.

  • Thank you TM for a mature reply.

  • To Patrick,

    It is not the place of the government to take money from its people to freely give to another group of people and we as citizens should not accept this. This precept is not Christian nor Catholic for it breaks the 10th commandment. We are called as Christians to give to the poor and downtrodden. We are not called as Christians to have money taken from us and given to someone else because the government deamed it something good. Charity comes from people not from governments. Our welfare, medicare, etc systems are in a mess and do nothing but hold people down in poverty. Welfare is to help people until they get on their feet not to sustain them their entire lifes even though they have the ability to work. This is evil not good.

  • TM: Since we know that in November 2009 Stupak indicated that he NEVER intended to vote no on Obamacare, where do you get the idea that he has spent “the last few weeks and months agonizing over how to do the right thing?” Your defense of him is clearly negated by what the man said himself, right in front of a camera.

    He used the unborn as pawns in a political game designed to fool gullible pro-lifers and place himself in the spotlight. Now that’s what I call cynicism.

  • Be careful–Stupak will lie about other things as well. The key word is FOOL and we are that FOOL…

  • My only intent in posting this is to edify those who may not know. Bart, Jr., Stupak’s youngest son, committed suicide approximately ten years ago. I don’t know whether this tragic event played any role in Stupak’s initial heroic stance on abortion and his subsequent shameless cave-in, but, in any event, he and his family certainly deserve our prayers.

Stupak Deal with Obama, The End of the Pro Life Democrat?

Sunday, March 21, AD 2010
    US Catholic Bishops: Executive Order Deal A Non-Starter:

    We’ve consulted with legal experts on the specific idea of resolving the abortion funding problems in the Senate bill through executive order. We know Members have been looking into this in good faith, in the hope of limiting the damage done by abortion provisions in the bill. We believe, however, that it would not be fair to withhold what our conclusion was, as it may help members in assessing the options before them:

    “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 unanimous 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.”

    Richard Doerflinger
    U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

  • In deal with Stupak, White House announces executive order on abortion (Washington Post):

    Resolving an impasse with anti-abortion Democrats over the health-care reform legislation, President Obama announced Sunday that he will be issuing an executive order after the bill is passed “that will reaffirm its consistency with longstanding restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion,” according to a statement from the White House.

    “I’m pleased to announce we have an agreement,” Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said at a news conference announcing the deal.

  • “I think we’re witnessing Bart Stupak write the obit for the concept of the “pro-life Democrat” – Kathryn Jean Lopez (National Review).

Further analysis of the text of the order:

Continue reading...

56 Responses to Stupak Deal with Obama, The End of the Pro Life Democrat?

  • Lopez is correct.

  • Stupak is either an idiot which I doubt or completely mendacious which I suspect is closer to the case. In any event, he has destroyed his credibility as a pro-lifer.

  • It’s all so tragic I can only laugh.

    Something big in this country is on the horizon, and its not going to be good for anyone with a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ next to their name. There is a horrendous reality that this country will be drastically and negatively different by 2020.

  • What a disappointment he turned out to be. I really admired his courage and conviction.

    That he would trade away his convictions for this handful of magic beans is really just depressing.

    Time to get started on nullification.

  • The Susan B. Anthony List on this fake deal:

    “An executive order on abortion funding would do nothing to fix the problems presented by the current health care reform legislation that the House is considering today. The very idea is a slap in the face to the pro-life movement and should be offensive to all pro-life Members of Congress. An executive order can be rescinded at any time at the President’s whim. The courts could and have a history of trumping executive orders.

    “If this was a sincere attempt to meet pro-life concerns then you would hear the cry of pro-choice Members and groups. Rather Rep. Diana Degette, co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus told The Huffington Post on Saturday that ‘If there was an executive order saying they weren’t going to use federal funds in the bill to pay for abortions that would be fine with me, because we’ve stipulated to that even though we don’t like it, That’s the compromise we came to way back in July.’

    “In the end, no pro-life Member of Congress could, in good conscience, play politics with the lives of hundreds of unborn children. If they do, there will be a quick downhill slide to defeat on Election Day.”

  • Linda Goldthorpe is Stupak’s likely opponent in the Fall. Assuming she wins the primary I’ll be sending her a hundred bucks.

    http://www.lindaforcongress.com/issues/right-to-life

  • I agree with Donald, the concept/idea of a pro-life Democrat is gone. Finished.

    Stupak got his bag of silver.

  • Tito,
    Just figuring that out now, huh?

  • Stupak said the bill had enough votes without the Stupak 7. If that’s the case, this is the best deal pro-lifers could’ve gotten.

  • Daledog,

    Someone as dense as I am figure things out eventually.

    I am still much a like a child, I believe a man’s word at face value.

    I’d make a terrible politician.

  • RR,

    For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life?

    –Holy Gospel of Saint Matthew 16:26

  • “If that’s the case, this is the best deal pro-lifers could’ve gotten.”

    Nothing is rarely a good deal for the recipient restrainedradical and the is what Stupak got. An Executive Order cannot contradict a law passed by Congress. If Stupak believes that he got anything from this charade other than the lasting enmity of the vast majority of all pro-lifers, than he is an utter fool, which I doubt.

  • To be fair — elected officials are hardly ever as strident, passionate, and committed to any issue as are those fighting in the trenches. That said, there is very few members of Congress who are as pro-life as non-elected pro-life Americans. Given the fact that someone fails to live up to their own principles and standards, that is a moral failing, but that hardly negates the validity of their political philosophy.

    In fact, for the number of pro-life Democrats in this country and the two I’ve talked to in the last hour troubled by the latest news hardly means in my view that being a pro-life Democrat is now an oxymoron. If it is, then I am an oxymoron and I am a counter-cultural warrior — to hell with the status quo.

  • K-Lo says:
    “I think we’re witnessing Bart Stupak write the obit for the concept of the “pro-life Democrat”

    There seems to be a never-ending shortage of dopey Catholics who will fall for the next pro-life democrat. Republicans are icky and mean, you see.

  • Seriously, there are still pro-life Democrats voting against the legislation and are not convinced of the current strategy that Stupak and a few other Democrats have co-signed themselves onto.

    I think they deserve to not catch the heat.

  • Christopher, let us look at the discussion on executive decisions a bit:

    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.

    So, let’s see, Hyde was seen as good enough in a previous time, when the question of “Hyde could be over-ruled and rejected in the future” remained. In other words, we see here an argument can be built upon acceptance of Hyde itself — it has been used to justify all kinds of things under Bush’s rule, for example. Hyde was protecting everything, so Bush’s budgets didn’t get such a serious questioning — even when he gave an increase of funding to groups like Planned Parenthood. So, it seems that Hyde was good enough for many of the voices now speaking out against it’s application now. Seems clear that something is wrong here.

    Now, let us look further. We will begin to see it is an issue of advice given to the bishops. There is no charism given to bishops in selecting the best advisers nor any given to the advisers as to what is best (look to the child abuse scandal for proof of this). The fact that we are being told they reject such a move is from advisers indicates the kind of authority by which this decision is made: it is one which is open to debate and question and disagreement. Hence we read:

    The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence.

    So it is not a top-down proof that executive decisions are not appropriate. Indeed, without giving full details about who all these advisers are and what they all have said and why they said what they said, we are going on a very low level of teaching authority based upon an interpretation of matters outside of competence of bishops.

    —-

    “When the hierarchy is faced by a conflict of opinions in the church, it does not always succeed in achieving a perfectly adequate response. Broadly speaking, two kinds of mistake are possible – excessive permissiveness and excessive rigidity. It is hard to know which of the two errors has done more harm.”

    “We must recognize, therefore, that there can be such a thing in the church as mutable or reformable teaching. The element of mutability comes from the fact that such teaching seeks to mediate between the abiding truth of the gospel and the socio-cultural situation at a given time and place.”

    “Did Vatican II teach the legitimacy of dissent from non-infallible teaching? It did so implicitly by its action, we may say, but not explicitly by its words. The theological commission responsible for paragraph 25 of the Constitution of the Church refused to make any statement, one way or the other, about dissent.”

    “A step beyond the council was taken by the German bishops in a pastoral letter of September 22, 1967, which has been quoted on several occasions by Karl Rahner. This letter recognized that in its effort to apply the gospel to the changing situations of life, the church is obliged to give instructions that have a certain provisionality about them. These instructions, though binding to a certain degree, are subject to error. According to the bishops, dissent may be legitimate provided that three conditions are observed. (1) One must have striven seriously to attach positive value to the teaching in question and to appropriate it personally. (2) One must seriously ponder whether one has the theological expertise to disagree responsibly with ecclesiastical authority. (3) One must examine one’s conscience for possible conceit, presumptuousness, or selfishness. Similar principles for conscientious dissent had already been laid down by John Henry Newman in the splendid chapter on Conscience in his Letter to the Duke of Norfolk (1874).”

    “There is always a temptation for church authorities to try to use their power to stamp out dissent. The effort is rarely successful, because dissent simply seeks another forum, where it may become even more virulent. To the extent that the suppression is successful, it may also do harm. It inhibits good theology from performing its critical task, and it is detrimental to the atmosphere of freedom in the church. The acceptance of true doctrine should not be a matter of blind conformity, as though truth could be imposed by decree. The church, as a society that respects the freedom of the human conscience, must avoid procedures that savor of intellectual tyranny.

    Where dissent is kept within the bounds I have indicated, it is not fatal to the church as a community of faith and witness. If it does occur, it will be limited, reluctant, and respectful.”

    Avery Dulles http://www.vatican2voice.org/8conscience/dulles.htm

  • K-Lo talking about being pro-life: hilarious.

  • Karlson taking about being pro-life: barf worthy.

  • If the bill had enough votes without the Stupak 7, the executive order saves pro-lifers some face.

  • “If the bill had enough votes without the Stupak 7, the executive order saves pro-lifers some face.”

    Appearing to be an utter fool restrainedradical saves no any face. By definition any one trusting in this exectutive order from the most pro-abort president in our nation’s history is an utter fool.

  • Seems to me that if the bill had enough votes w/out the Stupak 7, then no executive order would have been proffered.

  • I think they deserve to not catch the heat.

    They can catch the heat for what they did not do to repair the financial system while they were needlessly chuffering about medical insurance and what they did do to make our public finances resemble those of Greece.

  • I wonder if the U.S. bishops should be held partially responsible for the passage of this bill? They did lobby VERY hard to get it to this point, not knowing if they would get the wording they wanted.

  • Tito,
    They ought to be held responsible. These fools have been playing footsie with liberal politics for much too long. One day is too long as far as I am concerned. It seems to me that their plate is full with their own problems.

  • No Tito, the bishops lobbied for something to address the medical needs of those who can ill afford proper care. That is a legitimate concern and there are many ways to work toward it. The problem is that what the current congress and president offers as a solution. A solution that many believe will cause more harm than good, plus has all the unpleasantness of what that party stands for like considering the killing of the unborn to be health care. It’s not really within the competence of the bishops to speak to whether any given policy is unworkable or will bust the nation economically, but they’re well within their competence to discuss the morality of certain policies – to define what they are lobbying for when they say appropriate health care for all (they’re including the unborn, the elderly, and the infirm).

  • Yes, lobbying for the poor should not go unpunished.

  • Oh stop hiding behind the poor.

    This monstrous bill will ensure that many thousands of poor children would would have otherwise been born because their mother’s can’t afford abortions will now be sliced and diced in the womb. It’s poor children that suffer the most from government funded abortion.

  • Restrained,
    How silly. You care about the poor, huh? Give more. Work extra hours so that you can give more. Encourage others to give more. No need to lobby Caesar. Gifts from Caesar always have strings attached. Do you feel better about yourself when you can force others to give more?

  • I think the bishops should be held somewhat responsible.

    Let’s see if they work equally as hard to get this “law” revoked.

    I doubt that resolve will be as diligent.

  • Here’s the bottom line: you can’t be Democrat and a legitimate orthodox Catholic – period. You maybe can be a Republican. It’s bets however to be a member of the Constitution Part because their platform is closest to the teaching of Holy Mother Church though they won’t be USCCB approved because they don’t believe in all this social justice, common good nonsense and free health care for illegal immigrants. Personal responsibility goes with person liberty and that’s a lesson lost on most Catholics for the past 50 years. Pelosi, Biden, Leahy and all the rest of the Catholic apostates will continue to receive Holy Communion and nothing the USCCB says or does means a damn.

    Every single liberal politician has got to be publicly excommunicated and the false gospel of social justice and peace at any price has got to be jettisoned. Until that happens, the Church in America is a worthless collection of dirty old gay men at 3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington DC 20017-1194 playing at religion.

  • You guys simply don’t like the truth. Moderate away. God will have to sweep the liberals aside in His wrath. That’s the only way you’ll learn. The only way.

  • The Executive Order is already null and void:

    1. As an executive order, it is secondary in power to any law of the land as interpreted by the courts — unless the legislative and judicial branches have just ceded its power to the executive, and we are in a dictatorship.

    2. As an executive order, it is binding only on the activity of the executive branch, not on the private providers who would provide abortions.

    3. Roe v. Wade obliges any legislation offering medical benefits to cover abortion unless some section in that legislation, such as the Hyde amendment, specifically excludes abortion. This legislation lacks the Hyde exclusion; therefore, this legislation falls under the Roe requirement. The Executive Order, even if it were not null and void, is written not to match the Hyde Amendment language, but rather to match the Senate legislation language which, as we all know, falls short of Hyde.

    As such, the order offers no prevention of federally funded abortion even if it bore any authority.

    4. And of course, Obama will deep-six the executive order whenever he might find it convenient. If somehow it is not a nullity, he will do so: He has never claimed to be pro-life. And if it is not a nullity, he will not need to vacate it, for it will have accomplished its intended goal without costing him the support of NARAL.

    Of course, if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, none of this would be a problem.

    But we all know, don’t we, that it’s foolish for pro-lifers to harp so much on the need to overturn that decision.

    It’s counterproductive. It uses up resources that could be more profitably spent courting centrist Democrats and exploring our common ground.

    We know that, this late in the day, it is no longer time for concern about Supreme Court justices and the presidents who select them; it is time to focus on new tactics involving engagement with pro-life Democrats.

    That’s the lesson we learned, back during the 2008 election cycle.

    Everyone remember that?

    Let’s also keep in mind another lesson we learned that year: “Signing statements” are a tyrannical overreach of executive power in which George W. Bush altered the meaning of Congressional legislation at signing, a risky proposition and bad precedent which clearly indicated the need to switch parties in the White House for awhile, lest the occupant of the People’s House start to think his authority trumped that of the legislative branch.

    Must remember that. That was one of those timeless truths for the ages.

    I’ll lay aside my trowel, now: Whatever Babylonian tower we’re building in this country is already in danger of collapse from the sheer weight of the irony.

  • Good post R.C.

    We do need to overturn Roe and we do need to reject signing statements. If I didn’t understand it before, I sure as heck understand it now.

    I think the next step is nullification at the state level.

  • “Here’s the bottom line: you can’t be Democrat and a legitimate orthodox Catholic – period.”

    I beg to differ.

  • We need you in Congress, Eric. =)

  • Paul,

    You will only be moderated if your comment violates our rules for comments.

  • Do you feel better about yourself when you can force others to give more?

    Yes.

  • Yes, lobbying for the poor should not go unpunished.

    Yeah, the poor will do real well after a sovereign default.

  • He never planned on fighting. Rep. Bart Stupak speaking in Cheboygan, MI

  • The bishops must take a large amount of blame for this monstrous piece of legislation for several reasons:

    1. Failure to excommunicate pro-abortion politicians and force them to choose between their pro-abortion positions and their desire to receive the sacraments. (This has been going on for four decades)

    2. The Bishops’ push for “universal health care.”

    The big question is: why did the bishops stay on board with this legislation as long as they did?

    The only answer that makes sense is that the bishops favor socialism… big government programs as solutions to their “social justice” aims.

    If this means invasive government intrusion into our lives, so be it. If it means massive tax increases, so be it. If it means wealth redistribution, so be it.

    When it was obvious to many of us that the bill was unacceptable on so many fronts, one could only wonder why the bishops continued to push for it so hard, as long as they got their three concessions (abortion, conscience, immigrants).

    I am saddened, disgusted, and disheartened by the bishops’ push for socialized medicine. How can I have respect for them? Happily, my faith is firmly in Jesus Christ, no matter what the American church’s hierarchy says or does.

  • Restrained,
    I fear people like you.

  • Restrained,
    I fear people like you.

    Indeed. Restrained reveals his/her petty little totalitarian heart, mistaking the desire to rule and coerce others for “compassion.” If a majority of people in this country think in those terms, democracy is doomed. But I don’t think they do (thank God) and I don’t believe we are doomed yet. There will be a reckoning in November. Those of us who attended tea parties, called our Congressmen, and donated to those who opposed this monstrosity of a bill are not going away and we will not forget the open contempt the Democratic Party has shown toward us. I have sometimes voted Democrat in local elections – never again.

  • Obama has now done something I didn’t think would ever be possible: make me more ashamed to be an Illinois resident than Governor Hairdo ever did. (Speaking of The Hair, did Trump fire him from “Celebrity Apprentice” yet?) If it hadn’t been for our crooked Chicago machine and pathetic, desperate joke of a GOP organization, he might never have been elected Senator and none of this would have happened.

  • Well, Mr. R. Radical was merely telling the truth: he does not believe in the commandment “thou shalt not steal,” because that is exactly what forcing others to be virtuous inevitably involves. In a bizarre way that puts him in a better place than the G.O.P. who are still somehow convinced that their thefts are not as terrible because they simply love America more, or some nonsense.

    For anyone who is appalled at what is happening right now: Don’t worry. Economics will win. We should just pray that people aren’t hurt when that terrible day comes.

  • Donald: Stupak’s likely GOP opponent in the November is a conservative pro-life physician named Dan Benishek. His Facebook page is growing by the minute.
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=share&gid=287806148754

    His site has an address. I never heard of the man until about 20 minutes ago. I’m writing him a check tonight.

    As for Stupak, well, he got his 30 pieces of silver:

    “U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) announced three airports in northern Michigan have received grants totaling $726,409 for airport maintenance and improvements. The funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration.”

    Betraying your conscience for Wales is one thing, but for three airports in the UP? Now there’s a cheap date.

  • Democrats for Death is more apropos.

    It’s “Game On” for me and the bishops.

    The USCCB is in for some heavy fire coming my way.

    The deaths of many innocent unborn children will be on their hands.

  • Tito, why would you want to pit yourself against the vicars of Christ? It doesn’t seem like a terribly wise idea. Besides, they did not vote for this legislation, nor did they support it. They were one of the few voices saying it was unacceptable, and reminding people that while trying to ensure everyone gets medical care whether they can afford it or not is a a good, that it can’t come at the expense of the most vulnerable.

    The behavior of Catholics who put the Democratic agenda above concerns for life is upsetting, but that wasn’t the bishops – the bishops took a pounding from them!

  • RL,

    I agree with what you are saying.

    Though too many times is seems that the USCCB is just another wing of the Democratic Party rather than vicars of Christ.

    With Democratic Pro-Abort operatives infesting the USCCB along with atheists that endorse anti-Catholic films, and our donations going to abortion facilities and gay marriage advocates (do I need to continue?, there’s more…)

  • I’m not blind to some of the dysfunction within the organization. But let’s be clear, those issues are usually caused by the bureaucrats within. Yeah, some aspects of the USCCB need to be looked at and overhauled, but the bishops themselves got involved in this one – and in real time – and offered solid and informed guidance, holding principles of justice and moderation above their own desires to see some sort of reform. We can and should be very proud of the prophetic witness they gave throughout this process. This ain’t the 1975 NCCB anymore!

  • RL & CB,

    Unlike abortion, we can disagree with our bishops on universal health care.

    They are violating the principle of subsidiarity.

    If they would be this adamant about ending abortion in America, I could agree with their aggressive nature towards universal health coverage, but they don’t.

    The USCCB is not the magisterium, not a teaching authority, and are an invention by Democratic leaning bishops.

    It needs to be absolved. If not, then completely overhauled.

    Until that happens, I will expose them for what they are, a wing of the Democratic party and participants in promoting the Culture of Death.

  • Ever hear of the phrase “throw out the baby with the bathwater”?

  • The road to Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.

    – Saint John Chrysostom.

    CB,

    In all seriousness I know what you’re getting at so an overhaul is reasonable since my idea of eliminating the USCCB won’t fly… yet.

  • Pingback: November 2009, Stupak Never Intended to Vote No on ObamaCare « The American Catholic
  • Restrained,
    I fear people like you.

    Restrained reveals his/her petty little totalitarian heart, mistaking the desire to rule and coerce others for “compassion.”

    Mr. R. Radical was merely telling the truth: he does not believe in the commandment “thou shalt not steal,” because that is exactly what forcing others to be virtuous inevitably involves.

    I don’t think God disapproves of taxation.