Like wolves on a fresh killed deer, the liberals keep tearing up Democrats over Representative Stupak’s amendment, which forces pro-abortion Dems to vote for pro-life protections for the innocents.
This has sites like FireDogLake completely bent:
“Is there anyone who did not see this coming, besides the over hundred Democrats in the House who call themselves pro-choice? Ben Nelson (D-NE) is now demanding the Senate also include the Stupak amendment language. Did anyone really think the Senate’s conservative Democrats would let any part of the House bill be to the right of the Senate? If Nelson gets his way (and when hasn’t Nelson gotten his way this year?), so much for “don’t worry, Obama will fix it in conference.”
“Senator Nelson is strongly pro-life and was pleased the Stupak amendment passed with such strong support,” Thompson said in a statement. “He believes that no federal money—including subsidies or tax credits–should be used to buy insurance coverage for abortion. This is a very important issue to Senator Nelson and it is highly unlikely he would support a bill that doesn’t clearly prohibit federal dollars from going to abortion.”
“It is a good thing NARAL and Planned Parenthood did not put up a fight before the Stupak amendment was added to the House bill. It is always so much easier to push things to the left in the Senate. . . .
But NARAL and Planned Parenthood got rolled by Speaker Pelosi, and now pro-abortion Senators will be forced to make the same choice pro-abortion House Dems did, but this time, the NARALs and Planned Parenthoods of the world can’t just roll over and play dead, like they did for their pal the Speaker.
To wit, the Wall Street Journal is reporting this morning:
Abortion-rights advocates argue that opposition will grow as people understand the reach of Mr. Stupak’s measure. “We’re going to hold the Senate accountable and hold their feet to the fire,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Their membership now understands the implications of the Senate bill containing the Stupak amendment too.
It would mean the liberals would have to either accept the pro-life restrictions, or alternatively, kill their own bill to stop them.

The Stupak Amendment is a trap.
Cargosquid Tuesday, November 10th at 9:57AM EST (link)If its added, then one more reason for RINO’s to vote against it will be lost.
I agree - a trap, red herring, a distraction
spimnyborg Tuesday, November 10th at 10:51AM EST (link)others (on the front page here and many others) have said it quite well and thoroughly…
this is about voting away our Freedom
Passing this bill will throw the country far … FAR … down the road of turning the people of this country from citizens into serfs
How is it a trap for our side?
writeblock Tuesday, November 10th at 9:20PM EST (link)Ben Nelson has vowed to vote against the bill if it lacks a pro-life amendment. Together with Lieberman, that would kill the bill–unless Reid reconfigures it and rejects the public option–which may win over Lieberman but presents other headaches on the left. Meanwhile if the pro-life amendment is stripped from the bill, the Stupak gang threatens to vote it down in the House. How do the liberals get out of this quandary?
precisely
Dan Perrin Wednesday, November 11th at 12:45AM EST (link)writeblock
precisely
I'm sort of torn.....
jackhammer Tuesday, November 10th at 10:30AM EST (link)I am quite opposed to socialized government run or government mandated health insurance….
But if the Stupak and Nelson ammendments are included that would really close down Planned Parenthood, because abortion is pretty much their only profitable service…..I don’t see that many people buying supplemental abortion insurance, and I don’t see many people providing it, because who offers insurance for something that costs between $500-700? What would the premiums even be…and who would buy that anticipatory?
So this ammendment could de facto decimate the number of doctors performing abortions…..
As I said, I am very much against the health care takeover, but would be torn if having it happen also meant having less than half as many abortions as we currently have……
But that will never happen, jackhammer, not under
janis Tuesday, November 10th at 12:34PM EST (link)the vigilant eyes of these people Abortion is their showpiece policy and they’re not going to just let go of it. No matter what they have to do, abortion will still be there and they will allow no restrictions on it.
Our votes for or against mean nothing in this context.
I agree that without Stupak
Dan Perrin Wednesday, November 11th at 12:44AM EST (link)this bill will be a financial windfall that inflates and props up a dying (pun intended) abortion industry
Medicare Rates?
jackhammer Wednesday, November 11th at 8:38AM EST (link)the left is always so happy to talk about negotiated medicare rates beign the basis of their health care plan, because the evil doctors are earning too much….but somehow I think with the combo of medicare being for seniors and the hyde ammendment, there probably isn’t a negotiated rate for abortion, but how abotu we set it at $1 or so, and then no doctorss will see it as a means of making any money, or even covering costs, then it would sort of dissapear…..
They should toss the 64 Dems who voted for Stupak out of their caucus
bk Tuesday, November 10th at 10:32AM EST (link)and then go back to writing stories about how glad they are that the GOP is so divided.
I Don't follow the logic
djemi Tuesday, November 10th at 12:03PM EST (link)Maybe I’m just a simpleton but can someone please explain how the Dems can argue that a woman has the right to choose(sbortion) yet the individual doesn’t have the right to choose(mandate to buy health insurance) to buy health insurance or not.
I’ve ask my critter but got the standard I don’t want to speak for the critter from the office intern.
“If I can’t shoot rabbits,then I can’t shoot fascist”
“With age, comes Wisdom, but only if you are paying Attention, son” my ‘Old Man’
RS Help files (h/t JLenardDetroit) Grassroots in Michigan
Moes Strategy
it's even worse than that
bk Tuesday, November 10th at 12:43PM EST (link)Do we taxpayers have the right to say our tax money shouldn’t be used for abortions?
Thats a tough one.
djemi Tuesday, November 10th at 1:01PM EST (link)Don’t get me wrong, the individual should not have the right to pick and choose what there personal tax dollars are spent on, but our reps should and do and we can influence said reps. Otherwise we would end up with a trick box form form the IRS with a question like- do you want your taxes spent on the military, roads, education etc.
Having said that new unique biological life begins at concemption(in womb) and thus should have all the rights of those life forms(out womb) that can sustain themselves.
“If I can’t shoot rabbits,then I can’t shoot fascist”
“With age, comes Wisdom, but only if you are paying Attention, son” my ‘Old Man’
RS Help files (h/t JLenardDetroit) Grassroots in Michigan
Moes Strategy
Yes, and the restrictions
Dan Perrin Wednesday, November 11th at 12:42AM EST (link)have been upheld in courts repeatedly
Mainly because it is Congress
Dan Perrin Wednesday, November 11th at 12:43AM EST (link)that is imposing the restrictions, not you personally