« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Remember when Stupak held out for that executive order against Fed abortion funding?

Yeah.

Obama’s exectuive order has been effectively rendered a useless piece of paper.

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – The Obama administration has officially approved the first instance of taxpayer funded abortions under the new national government-run health care program. This is the kind of abortion funding the pro-life movement warned about when Congress considered the bill.

The Obama Administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new “high-risk” insurance program under a provision of the federal health care legislation enacted in March.]

This is why I’m failing to believe that a pro-life Democrat exists. The myth of the Blue Dog needs to be destroyed. They do not exist, and when confronted with a very real choice between life and Leftist ideology, they will choose Leftist ideology.

Obama has been unapologetic about his abortion record. People dismissed it, and believed the lies Stupak was spewing about holding out for a life protection clause in the health care reform atrocity that was rammed through in March. Just in case you forgot, it was Stupak’s spineless deal that put this over the edge, and gave the “pro-life” Dems the cover they needed to vote the way they really wanted to vote. It was the final straw for the passage of the bill.

DHHS has emphasized that the states will not incur any costs of this “high risk” insurance program, and it will be completely funded by the Federal government – just to . The loophole comes in the wording:

The section on abortion (see page 14) asserts that “elective abortions are not covered,” though it does not define elective — which Johnson calls a “red herring.”

Therein lies the problem. Anything that is not hard worded is a gray area that will be manipulated by the most pro-abortion administration we’ve ever seen. What, then, determines an “elective” abortion? Is the mother who chooses to terminate her baby with Down’s Syndrome “electing” to have an abortion, or is she forced by circumstances?
The National Right to Life Committee has determined that the only abortion that will not be covered under the plan is gender selection. It’s dangerous territory, which is why there should be no Federal funding for abortions, period. Everyone has a different definition of what is “elective.” We know all too well what happens when Washington has room to maneuver within the wording of the law.
So, Bart Stupak, this is on your head. I hope your district remembers when you promised them that this bill would not include abortion funding.
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • teresakoch

    Oh, well, we all knew he/they were lying through their teeth in the first place. Any chance that we can file a lawsuit charging the government with willful killing of future taxpayers?…..

    • thelibrul

      There’s no standing in court for just being a taxpayer. So, honestly, I don’t know how anyone could challenge it, unless they are arguing that abortions SHOULD be funded. That’s been challenged under Medicaid.

      • callawyn

        Neither do the enviro-nitwits or atheists.

        Seems the rules for determining who has ‘standing’ to sue are heavily slanted in favor of marxists. If you want to sue to reduce the size of the government or to force the government to uphold the law, sorry, no standing.

        However, if you want to sue over any environmental issue, ‘civil rights’ issue or establishment clause issue, to increase the size and power of the government or to continue the assault on Christianity, Capitalism or Family Values, presto you have standing.

        Case in point: ACLU is sueing Arizona over their immigration law before it even takes effect. No problem with ‘standing’, even though they don’t have any ‘victim’ of the law that could plausibly claim they’ve suffered from it.

        • thelibrul

          If your part of an otganaization that is pro environment you the org can only gain standing if a member of the org could. So, still there is no standing because you disagree eighths way taxes are spent. But, if you’re group is pro-environment and the govt is, for example, tearing down a nature preserve that a member(s) of the group has enjoyed, then standing is based on harm, not simply being a taxpayer. If standing could be based on the fact that you pay taxes (other than decisions directly affecting an individual or a small group of similary situated individuals) then the court system would simply be incapable of dealing with all the litigation.

          • thelibrul

            Disregard the bad spelling, not easy typing on my phone.

  • thelibrul

    Any court decisions defining elective abortion? That could matter regarding challenges to the Federal law (forgot the name of the Act) and whether elective abortion means anything other than “for the health and life of the mother,” which is the only time the Act allows for payment of abortion. Ambiguous legislative text may have certain legislative meaning.

    • Menlo

      In standard medical terminology, it is defined as those that are not “therapeutic.” However, you only need the abortionist to say that it was necessary for a woman’s “health” to get past that.

      As I understand it though, the money won’t come directly from the government in this or any other part of Obamacare. It will come from the “health insurance” companies who are being paid by the taxpayers to fund whatever abortion the “insurance” company wishes. So in this instance, I suspect the government will just let the administering insurance company make the decision.

      “Health insurance” corporations are now quasi-federal government agencies, and I’m surprised there has been so little direct communication with them on this.

      • thelibrul

        Do insurance plans under ERISA (which are highly federally regulated private plans) allow for abortion?

        • JSobieski

          the high risk pools are.

      • thelibrul

        I know the plan is setting up more community health centers, which that executive order stated can’t perform abortions, because they are paid for with taxpayer dollars. I guess it really comes down to how many steps away from direct taxpayer subsidy for abortion can actually still be called that. Govt sets up centers that perform abortion = taxpayer abortion. But where does the line get drawn considering the fungibility of money, you could go out to the point where a federal tax rebate used to buy an insurance plan that covers abortion would be taxpayer subsidy of abortion even if the insurance is a completely private plan (I.e, pre-obamacare plans).

      • dontremaine

        If a woman claims that having the baby would be a hardship in some obscure way, this could be claimed as a mental health risk!
        Don

  • Swamp_Yankee

    Its the rest of the gang that is running for re-election that must be called to task.

    • mbecker908

      He was very high profile, very adament about his “pro-life” views his name is the perfect tool to turn into an adjective for Blue Dog lying fools.

      • tngal

        got that right becker. And I noticed he just recently started donating to numerous dems who, it turns out, were the short-lived holdouts with him during the hc debate.

  • avgjo

    Stupak lied and babies died.

    Take your pick. Need any more reasons to push for the repeal of this thing?

    It is a death bill, start to finish. Shrink the population, kill off the old so you don’t have to pay out SS, and give the Federal government power to boot.

    So many Americans claim to have a ‘whatever it takes’ attitude to stop terrorist attacks. We’d better have the same (political) attitude towards this. This bill is no different from an Al-Qaeda bomb. It is a tool of pre-meditated murder which targets the defenseless innocent. Period.

    I defy anyone to prove me wrong.

  • From ME to You
  • rdelbov

    why I cut some slack to 100% pro life republicans who may stray on some econ issues. I say what value can you place on voting 100% pro life. 500K abortions per year is a national tragedy.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack
    • dontremaine

      Coolidge is misinformed at best.
      The American political freedom is not a privilege, it’s a God given right that was acknowledged by the Constitution.
      Don

  • eburke

    is doing well these days!

  • sallyal

    we (somebody) can’t sue to have this garbage bill overturned based on the fact the the congress and senate were lied to (repeatedly) in order to get it passed. This is a prime example, also the number or people who will see premium increases, loose their existing insurance (against ALL promises from the Won), see tax increases (see previous), etc, etc. We were all lied to and we will all have standing when we loose our insurance. It may not have happened yet but it will.

    • renny

      One of the three articles of impeachment voted against Nixon (but never implemented; he resigned) was “he lied to the American people.” Have we changed so much since 1974?

      • cwilson
      • dontremaine

        The left sure pushed hard to claim that Bush lied when he said there were WMDs in Iraq. Even though almost everyone truly believed it was true at the time. This does not fit the description of a lie. A lie is when you know at the time it is not true, otherwise it’s simply mistaken.
        They could have been relocated prior to the evasion. It’s not like there were any surprises.
        Seems like the democrats get a pass for lying and the republicans are charged regardless if it’s true or not
        Don

  • Mark D

    I never doubted that taxpayer money would be used toward abortion under the Obama administration. However, I figured that after working out that shell game with Stupak, Obama would wait until after the November elections so as not to jeopardize the chances of those incumbent Dems who sided with Stupak. Instead, he just painted a big target on their back.

    • eburke
  • jcincy

    Steve Driehaus caved along with the Stupak’s pack of ‘pro-life’ baby killers.

    Support the proven pro life candidate in Ohio’s First District, Steve Chabot.

    http://www.stevechabot.com/

  • rdelbov

    about this is that we are talking about it now instead of on 12-2-2010.

    Lets remember those so call pro-life democrats who caved on abortion–Kanjorski-Carney-Dahlmayer and of course Critz who does not support the repeal of Obamacare.

    • jcincy

      “There is no confirmed list of the Democrats who are supporting Stupak’s effort to stand up to the health care bill over abortion funding, but the general consensus is they include Republican Rep. Anh Cao of Louisiana, the only Republican to vote for the House version of the bill, Stupak himself, and the following Democrats:

      Jerry Costello (D-IL), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Steve Dreihaus (D-OH), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Dale Kildee (D-MI), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), Jim Oberstar (D-MN), and Charlie Wilson (D-OH).”

      www.lifenews.com

  • andyr27

    A good reason to support Dan Benishek to replace Stupak in Michigan’s First Congressional District. We need your help to push Dr. Dan over the finish line in this primary. Please check out www.benishekforcongress.com/voter and go to www.benishekbrigade.com to help us out. Thanks.

  • crosley

    I really blame the National Right to Life Committee for giving their blessing on Stupak’s amendment in the House that gave cover to so many Democrats. I believe that had this first vote failed in the House, ObamaCare would have died right then and there.

    It should be common sense that ANY government take over of health would inevitably require taxpayer-funded abortions (no matter what silly amendments are added), especially since the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s a Constitutional right. (which is a tragedy)

    Single issue organizations need to take a more holistic view of their public policy goals. It’s the same with the NRA. Even if Harry Reid is not terrible on 2nd Amenment issues, do you really think the 2nd Amendment would be better protected by liberal Democrats like Harry Reid?

    • JSobieski

      In the end, nobody voting Y on HCR has any cover, but because of the Stupak amendment and Scott Brown, the Dems really had to beat each other up behind closed doors.

    • eburke

      that he was really bluffing all along and the first time Nancy folded. The second time, the whole house of cards was about to come down and Nancy had to tell Bart “no deal”.

      Had she called his bluff the first time, he and his traitorous, lying, immoral, miserable bunch of human excrement would have folded the first time.

  • http://tabithahale.com Tabitha Hale

    In NRLC’s defense, the amendment was quite different than the executive order in that it actually added language to the bill instead of offering a useless piece of paper.

    • crosley

      Once you let the government in just a little bit, it usually takes over. It’s like a virus

      To think that a small amendment to a massive health-care take over by the government would stop the eventual outcome of taxpayer-funded abortions is naive. I can easily see a woman simply claiming any bogus medical reason to getting an abortion and the taxpayer having to pick up the tab.

      I can also see more than a handful of judges “making” the case that if access to abortion is a legally protected, constitutional right, and the government is responsible for paying health care costs, then naturally abortion has to be a covered procedure.

      I’m sure the organization’s heart was in the right place, but it gave cover to Democrat politicians in conservative districts, and I think it breathed enough life into the bill to eventually get it passed.

      • http://tabithahale.com Tabitha Hale

        Just saying that I understand why they supported the amendment, and that it wasn’t the same as the empty word Stupak swallowed from Obama that resulted in this.

  • Menlo

    According to the same source, New Mexico will be next in line for federal abortion funding. One of Tiller’s pals who took over some of his infanticide practices works in NM, and he will be elated.

  • jcincy

    http://www.lifenews.com/nat6184b.html

    Complete with a picture of the traitors.

  • David123

    you don’t really think Harry Reid is going to do anything to stop them do you?

    Hint – look at Stupak!

    Then be neutral or endorse Angle in Nevada!

  • nvrepub

    nt

    • jcincy

      I know my (soon to be ex-) Congressman, Steve Driehaus voted for Obamacare breaking his pro-life pledge. He’s even pictured with the Chief Baby Killer while he is signing the meaningless Executive Order.

      The blood of these children cry out…

  • Superheater

    Chief among these pretenders is “where’s Bobby” Casey.

    I was so miffed at Santorum for endorsing Spectator..

    But I still can’t believe anybody thinks a Casey should be elected because:

    1.) Daddy was Governor
    2.) Politics is the family business.

    No wonder Casey endorsed Obama..

  • GreyCloak

    It’s a great issue for the politicians.

    On the fiscal conservative side, abortions cost far less than live births (because it is generally an uninsured procedure), and the Government avoids having to pay for raising children for at least eighteen years. On the religious conservative side, Old and New Testaments, and even the Koran, promote having children. On the people’s rights conservative side, people should be allowed to choose taxes, spending, and laws, and especially limit the Government’s intrusion on personal decisions.

    Polls show that Americans are generally divided 50-50 on the abortion issue. That would imply that the Government should stay out of it, not tax for it, and not pay for it.

    Have you ever fired an OB-Gyn for even suggesting an abortion? I have. Have you ever had a relative die in childbirth when the doctors recommended it not happen? I have. Have you ever watched a wonderful Down’s Syndrome child live for ten years because his parents KNEW well before birth and brought him into this world anyway? I have.

    Politically, the same people that complain about “anchor babies” encourage their birth and want them deported.

    I’m Godfather to an adopted child. When everybody else who is politically “pro-life” adopts an unwanted child (Jeremiah 49:11, James 1:27, Koran 2:220), I’ll side politically with the movement. Until then, I’ll side with folks that take responsibility and leave Government out of it.

    • Locked and Loaded
  • junegem

    Yesterday I faxed a copy of the article that announced this funding to Pennsylvania to Stupak’s office. I included the following message:

    Representative Stupak sold out the healthcare system of United States of America for a bold faced lie. We knew it then. Does he know it now? Will he now support repeal of this horrendous legislation?