Stupak: Healthcare bill will stall if abortion restrictions removed
I just reported that pro-life Democrat Sen. Ben Nelson told CNN he was content with a phony compromise amendment in the Senate socialized healthcare bill that would still allow for public funded abortions.
Meanwhile pro-life Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak, who led the way last week to the House’s passage of the pro-life Stupak/Pitts Amendment to its version of socialized healthcare, was on Fox News this morning.
Stupak basically said that should the healthcare bill come back to the House with the Stupak/Pitts Amendment stripped, it would die:
Stupak… dismissed a claim by White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod that President Obama would intervene to change the language, saying Axelrod is clueless on the issue and that such an intervention would imperil the bill….
“They’re not going to take it out. If they do, health care will not move forward,” Stupak told Fox News. “We won fair and square…. That’s why Mr. Axelrod’s not a legislator. He doesn’t really know what he’s talking about.”
The abortion amendment was tacked on to the House health care bill and was a key factor in securing the votes of moderate Democrats before the bill was approved by a narrow margin earlier this month. The amendment went beyond preventing the proposed government-run plan from covering abortion to restricting federal subsidies from being used for private plans that offer abortion coverage.
The passage drew recriminations from abortion rights supporters like Planned Parenthood, which called on the White House and Democratic lawmakers to reverse the measure….
But Stupak said the bill would have a difficult time getting through the Senate without such restrictions, and said that if it bounces back to the House without the amendment, the administration could lose “at least 10 to 15 to 20″ votes….
Recall the healthcare bill passed with Stupak/Pitts 220-215. Pelosi needed 218.
Furthermore Pelosi may lose the vote of Bill Owens, NY-23, depending on the timing of the 2nd House go-around.
Even though Owens’ win wasn’t certified, and has still not been certified, he was quickly sworn in to vote on healthcare only because his opponent, Doug Hoffman, conceded.
Hoffman has since “unconceded” after a recount narrowed Owens’ edge to 3k. 10k absentee votes have yet to be counted.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“That’s why Mr. Axelrod’s not a legislator. He doesn’t really know what he’s talking about.”
——————————————
I would say the same for most, if not ALL, of Obama’s white house ilk practicing Chicago-style politics in DC…
Here’s a link to an interview with Stupak that shows he has grown in his convictions since the youtube video where he said he’d probably still vote for socialized health care even if his ammendment was stripped.
He now says that the Health Care Bill would die in the House if they strip his language.
May God increase his boldness and resolve to protect innocents, and may He stir a fire in other congressmen to fervently join Stupak in his fight for Life.
I supported this amendment to the extent that it placed abortion and government abortion funding in the forefront of the healthcare coverage reform debate. Including the amendment also has a secondary positive impact by helping derail the government takeover of the healthcare industry. I never thought of the amendment as Pro Life, as it does not defend all life or prevent taxpayer funding of all abortions. The wording is not far removed from the language of abortion laws since 1973, since it allows for taxpayer funded “exceptions”. It also does not protect conscience rights and ignores other life issues.
I do understand that a portion of the fight to end abortion is waged on the political/governmental battlefield. I wish all elected officials and candidates who consider themselves Pro Life would have the courage to reject abortion in all cases and understand that anything less is not Pro Life. Perhaps they feel they would be unelectable if they go all the way and reject the exceptions. Maybe they are right in some cases and they would lose an election. I realize this is an old article about Sam Brownback, but it demonstrates courage and consistency: http://www.lifenews.com/nat3178.html
Those of us who are rape/incest conceived find extremely offensive the continued devaluation of our lives implied by the widespread acceptance of abortion exceptions. We strive to bring our stories to the mainstream and attempt to change the minds and hearts of people who see us as expendable.