Stupak: Anti-abortion groups 'used me as best chance to kill healthcare'

[kpete]

Source: The Hill


Stupak: Anti-abortion groups 'used me as best chance to kill healthcare'
By Tony Romm - 03/27/10 09:45 AM ET

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) on Saturday criticized pro-life groups who he said "rallied behind me... because they viewed me as their best chance to kill healthcare legislation."

Stupak last week voted in affirmation of Democrats' healthcare bill, even though the legislation's ban on federal dollars from funding abortions was not as strict as the amendment he proposed in the early days of debate. But while his decision to accept the Senate's approach has earned him the fiery scorn of countless pro-life groups, Stupak stressed in an op-ed published in The Washington Post this weekend that his actions have nonetheless protected the "sanctity of life."

"Once it was clear that the House leadership would eventually obtain the 216 votes necessary to pass health-care reform, I was left with a choice: Vote against the bill and watch it become law with no further protections for life or reach an agreement that prevents federal funding for abortions," the congressman said.


"Therefore, I and other pro-life Democrats struck an agreement with President Obama to issue an executive order that would ensure all Hyde Amendment protections would apply to the health-care reform bill," he continued. "No, an executive order is not as strong as the statutory language we fought for at the start. We received, however, an "ironclad" commitment from the president that no taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions."

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/89437-stupak-pro-life-groups-used-me-as-best-chance-to-kill-healthcare

[Enrique]

1. I have a theory about Stupak

just a theory, I know nothing about him, but after seeing him in some interviews he seems noticeably less bright than even most politicians. Maybe he's been under the impression that the pro-life movement is really concerned with preventing abortions, rather than a wedge issue for republicans, and that he's now waking up slowly.

I can see him listening to some of the voice mails and thinking to himself, "duh, these people don't seem very Christian..."

[chill_wind]

2. Works for me. n/t

[saigon68]

38. He's not the "Brightest Bulb" on the tree

[defendandprotect]

4. Evidently, Stupak was on the same Merry-go-Round with GOPs/NRA . . .

until his teenaged son committed suicide with a gun --

THEN, Stupak changed his position to support gun control -- !!!

Stupak also looks like another victim of organized patriarchal religion --

obedient servant?

[kanrok]

6. Believe it or not

There are still politicians out there who act according to their beliefs.

I cannot believe that he would have gone through the stress that he undoubtedly went through in reconciling his spiritual beliefs with his civil responsibilities without having a strong feeling that he was acting in conformance with his faith.

As a practicing Catholic, and as one who considers himself to be "pro-life" I can empathize with his decision making process.

He attempted to be completely pro-life in his vote.

He had to balance his beliefs on abortion with the Catholic belief that we should also help those who are outside the womb.

He went against the stated position of the USCCB on the healthcare bill.

I totally agree with his vote.

The USCCB, IMHO, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican party.

Why they felt it necessary to issue a position against the healthcare legislation is beyond me.

And yes, those on the right who now call Cong. Stupak a "baby-killer" and a "traitor" don't only "seem" anti-Christian, by their deeds, they actually are.

[nxylas]

7. Is the USCCB behind the catholic.org website?

I'm not a Catholic, but I went to that website the other day as research for something that I'm writing (nothing to do with politics, I was looking for information about a Catholic saint) and I couldn't help noticing that it contained a blatant lie on its front page, namely that the healthcare bill mandates federal funding for abortions. Isn't it a sin to tell a lie, or does invoking the IOKIYAR (It's OK if you're a Republican) heptagrammaton excuse everything?

[kanrok]

16. I have to say

That I had to look up "heptagrammaton", LOL.

And yes, it is a sin to lie.

It is a sin to sexually abuse children.

It is a sin to cover up the abuse, no matter what the alleged justification.

It just goes to show that there is a difference between teaching the gospel and living a life according to it.

Every one sins.

Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes.

No one is infallible.

Catholic.org has a lot of good stuff on it.

I ignore anything blatantly political.

What saint was it?

[nxylas]

18. I was looking up the patron saint of shoemakers

Don't ask, it would take too long to explain (it's St. Crispin, btw).

[aquart]

23. Heretic. The Pope is infallible.

[kanrok]

31. LOL

He is only infallible when acting ex cathedra.

A very rare occurrence.

Infallible in the Pope's sense does not mean "impeccable."

He sins. Just like me.

[grassfed]

35. infallibility dogma from 1870

Since the solemn declaration of Papal Infallibility by Vatican I on July 18, 1870, this power has been used only once ex cathedra: in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

just FYI...

[aquart]

36. I'm going to have to look up those words.

My neighborhood was Catholic/Jewish (and the occasional token Protestant) so I relied for information on what I was told by my friends in school. They told me he was infallible! They didn't say it was a conditional infallibility! I have been misinformed for fifty years.

[kanrok]

37. It's not an uncommon issue

Many Catholics are misinformed on Papal infallibility.

[aquart]

40. Children always get the simplified version.

The problem arises when we don't add an adult education to it. Not being Catholic, I simply accepted that my Catholic classmates knew more about their own religion than I did.

[kanrok]

42. That's true

But it's also true that for a fairly long period of time Catholic catechesis was not very good.

[aquart]

46. Now of that, I would know nothing.

[northernlights]

11. no sympathy for Stupak...he asked for it

Representatives are supposed to represent the will of *all* the people, and more specifically their constituents. Not just people who share *their* beliefs.

A major reason it took until the 1960s to elect a Catholic president was non-Catholics' (apparently justified) fears that a Catholic president would put the Pope ahead of the people who hired him. A major reason why President Kennedy was elected was because he made a point of assuring Americans that he understood the fundamental requirements of the job and the separation of church and state.

I'm (minimally) sorry Stupak feels "used." However, Stupak ran for and accepted the position based on a lie -- that he would represent *all* his constituents. In fact, he used the power of his position to ram *his* personal beliefs down *our* collective throats.

That is just plain wrong. Here is the extent of my sympathy...:nopity:


And, for the record, one can be a "Christian" and accept that an egg cell, a zygote, an embryo and a fetus are *potential* living beings...not viable, conscious, soul-ful, living beings just yet. And that regardless of their personal beliefs, there are many, many people with different beliefs who aren't exactly forcing them to have abortions willy-nilly and for their jollies.

[FedUpWithIt All]

17. Nobody can represent the will of all people or constituents.

And you know it. That would require everyone who voted for the man to share the exact same desires and beliefs. They don't. So how would a person represent EVERY person? Clearly impossible and a ridiculous expectation based on this impossibility.
:eyes:
That is why it doesn't work like that.

People are responsible for researching a candidate and the things they stand for before they vote for them.

[kanrok]

21. Precisely

Well stated.

[northernlights]

26. obviously. That's why MAJORITY is supposed to rule in a democracy

and the majority of people in the US support abortion rights. And the majority of people in the US support some sort of public option.

I stand by what I wrote. He's supposed to represent the will of the people, not ram his personal beliefs down our collective throats.

He still gets :nopity: from me. And you can put your :eyes: back in your head where they belong...or not. I'm not impressed.

[Demeter]

44. That's Why There Is a Body of Law

to guide the elected representatives as to how to represent the people-

unfortunately, the rule of law is so 20th century...W revoked it. Obama hasn't gotten around to resolving it, but his tendencies seem to be ignoring it as well, so we can "look forward" to much more criminal behavior getting tacit support from the government....when not actually done by the govt.

[louis-t]

19. I think Stupak thought he could get political mileage by

"taking a stand". The executive order that he "demanded" does not move the ball one way or the other, as far as I know. He tried to ingratiate himself to the teabaggers and it bit him right on the ass. If teabaggers even perceive that they are not getting what they want, they will turn on repugs, too.

[RainDog]

27. did his constituents know he was anti-woman?

did his constituents know he would allow a religious belief that is in no way part of our government to give him permission to vote to treat women as second-class citizens?

because the truth is that the democratic party platform states it is pro-choice - REAL LIVES - not some religious ideation not grounded in science or law.

imo, anyone who is not pro-choice who cannot support choice anyway has no business in the democratic party.

anti-choice is a RADICALLY RIGHT POSITION.

it is an anti-equal rights position.

he may not force his religious beliefs on others in this nation. but, since he takes this position, I hope he is primaried.

What he did was disgusting.

[Iowa]

29. There are some inconsistencies in your post...

First you say this:

"He had to balance his beliefs on abortion with the Catholic belief that we should also help those who are outside the womb."

Then you say this:

"The USCCB, IMHO, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican party."

If you are claiming that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is effectively a branch of the Republican party (which it is), you can't also claim that the Catholic faith is about helping "those who are outside of the womb". You simply can't have it both ways. It is the hierarchy of the Church that determines dogma - not its followers. Furthermore, it's a real stretch to champion the notion that the Catholic Church is about helping those outside the womb when we now know that the hierarchy has been knowingly perpetuating child sexual abuse for decades, and continues to protect those who are responsible.

You go on to say this about the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

"Why they felt it necessary to issue a position against the healthcare legislation is beyond me."

Isn't the answer obvious? You even state it in your post: "The USCCB, IMHO, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican party." So why is that beyond you?

You go further by stating the following:

"And yes, those on the right who now call Cong. Stupak a "baby-killer" and a "traitor" don't only "seem" anti-Christian, by their deeds, they actually are."

You seem to be making the claim that those who follow the lead of their bishops are "anti-Christian" when they condemn those who don't toe the line on the abortion issue to their satisfaction. If anything, they are the ones who are actually adhering to the dogma of their religion. So again, you seem to be trying to have it both ways by rationalizing away the dark-side of the religion you espouse.

It is this type of intellectually dishonesty that allows people to avoid facing the grim reality of the religion they continue to practice and support. I have suggested the following to other Catholics: If you don't want to lose your faith in the Catholic religion (and most practicing Catholics don't), it's best to avoid delving into it too deeply. Most who don't follow that advice end up abandoning the Catholic religion - lock, stock, and barrel.

[Demeter]

43. That Would Be Fine If Stupak Were Elected Pope

but as he is supposed to represent the people of the US, and support the Constitution--all of it, not just the parts he likes,

Bart Stupak is a miserable failure as a US elected official.

[No Elephants]

8. I have another theory. All C Streeters are ambitious, evil nutcakes.

with delusions of having been chosen by God to rule, er, I mean, lead.

[me b zola]

22. I agree with your assessment. n/t

[niceypoo]

3. And you took the bait for months and months

...and now they are bombarding you with threats and hatred.

DOH!!

[rocktivity]

5. Candidate For This Year's "You Call This NEWS?" Award

How ironic that is name is only two letters away from "stupid..."

:eyes:
rocktivity

[SpiralHawk]

9. D'oh. Eat my shorts.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

13. .

:spray:






My new favorite subject line!

[No Elephants]

10. Sounds like another RWer trying to have it both ways.

He should stop calling these people pro-life. They are anti-health care and POSSIBLY also anti-abortion, but they are not pro-life.

And, if Stupak were truly pro-life, he would not have been pro-gun or be pro-war.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

12. and you cozied right up to them. Had slumber parties at C Street.

Patted each other on the back. Until they turned around and attacked you.

"Oooch. Owwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. I'll be "resolute" (code for: blinkered stubborn ass) , ignore the pain and suffering my actions cause, but when I myself suffer, Waaaaaaa........."



get lost.

[caraher]

14. Give him a little credit

Yes, he's certainly slow... but at least he's getting there.

[Warpy]

15. Well, dawn breaks over Marblehead!

Yes, Stupak, you got used just like all fetus fetishists have been used by the fascist right since Ronnie Reagan was swept into office by a coalition of the rich and the terminally stupid.

Wise up, asshole, you're still being used by those people and that cheap rent you got all those years was your bribe. You got bought off cheap.

Dummy.

[dwilso40641]

20. How's that

15 minutes working for you bart?

[aquart]

24. Why would "anti-abortion groups" want to kill a bill

That had absolutely nothing to do with abortion?

And Bart, does this tardy awakening mean Obama can rescind that worthless face-saving executive order?

[Hekate]

25. Sounds like he woke up. Now about those "Family" ties...Does he have anything to say about that yet?

Inquiring minds want to know how far this revelation extends.

Hekate

[TygrBright]

28. I'm-a gonna send him the bill for my new Irony Meter. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

30. And the "No Shit, SherlocK" award goes to.....

And unfortunately, Mr. Stupak is unable to accept his award, as he is cowering in his office.

[MisterP]

32. guess that's what he meant when he yelled "The Democrats are now the party of life!" or something nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Fun with math.

Once it was clear that the House leadership would eventually obtain the 216 votes necessary to pass health-care reform

The bill got 219 votes. Stupak said he had a dozen supporters.

[rpannier]

34. Bart Stupak the House equivalent of the Senate's Arlen Specter

Now that he has a primary opponent he's singing a different tune

[saigon68]

39. Hopefully we have seen the last of him in the primary

[rpannier]

45. Love to see them both go in the primary

I have more hope that Stupid...Stupak will be gone than I do the ghoul

[Arkana]

41. Of course they did, Bart. You're JUST realizing this now?