... In motion is a dizzying array of both legitimate and nefarious factors that might sway some votes. But the Democratic pro-life caucus is key, one way or the other.
Pro-abort Democratic leadership stopped trying to strike a compromise with Stu-PAC late last week, finally realizing, as House GOP Minority Leader John Boehner put it, abortion is "one of those issues that, literally, can't split the baby." (Well, pro-aborts wouldn't mind, but pro-lifers do.)
But along the way, pro-abort Democratic leadership apparently engaged Stupak in some interesting conversations....
According to National Review Online, quoting Stupak:
... What are Democratic leaders saying? "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing," Stupak says....
The Democratic Party wants publicly funded abortion available to the poor and minorities - so as to abort the poor and minorities. Sen. Dick Durbin was amazingly candid during a Senate committee meeting last July when arguing in favor of publicly funded abortions in the District of Columbia....
Continue reading my column today, "Publicly funded eugenics," at WorldNetDaily.com.
Pro-abort Democratic leaders don't like to have to think about the poor and minorities. Give them abortion so they don't have to ever see them. The government only thinks in green (and not the St. Patty's, enviro-weenie kind of green). And every American has a dollar value. You won't get the care you deserve for your infinite, priceless value as a person created in the image of God. You will get care based on your value to society.
If you favor government-run health care, you don't understand government.Posted by: Cranky Catholic at March 17, 2010 9:29 AM
I would be very interested in an articulate response to these analyses of the Senate bill's abortion-related provisions:Posted by: HuckFinn at March 17, 2010 10:23 AM
Your column glosses over the now well-established fact that there is no abortion funding in the Senate bill. None. Whatever some democrats may have said, in whatever context -- and just because I am a democrat doesn't in any way mean I support everything democrats say, far from it -- the real issue is what is actually in the bill. And there is no abortion funding.
The links posted by HuckFinn, above, are great and complete reviews of all of the abortion funding allegations that have been made and detail why they are not based in fact. (Thanks for those, by the way.)Posted by: Violet at March 17, 2010 1:32 PM
I am red,
Violet is blue,
Nelson sold out,
There's abortion too.
Violet and HuckFinn:
If that analysis is correct, then Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL and Emily's list would be protesting this bill. Remember their horrified reaction to the Stupak Amendment? The fact that they aren't protesting now is all the proof needed that the Healthcare Reform bill is pro-abortion and unacceptable.
I am not a lawyer, so I can't argue section and line; however there are some obviously troubling pieces to this bill:
1) The bill sets up an fund to pay for abortions. Whether or not this is a strictly a tax, everyone has to pay into it. It is an accounting game but at the end of the day it pays for abortion.
2) The bill is set to give commissions/bureaucrats broad powers to define healthcare: and if they define abortion as healthcare then it allows a way for exceptions to all the abortion restrictions to creep into our regulations.
This is from Jost himself (via Mother Jones: http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/senate-health-care-bill-abortion-typo:
He basically said the Hyde Amendment restrictions were left off the section for Community Health Centers which does open them to abortion funding.
"This is all stuff that was inserted late at night and they were trying to reach a final agreement" on the bill, says Timothy Jost, a professor and health law expert at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. Unfortunately, no one remembered to write in an explicit provision explaining that this $7 billion in spending for the health care centers would be subject to all the usual restrictions on how federal money is spent. One of those restrictions, the so-called Hyde Amendment, prohibits most federal funding for abortions. (Abortion has been a key point of contention in the health care reform debate on another front: whether consumers who purchase private insurance plans with the help of government subsidies can obtain plans that cover abortion.)
Other, similar parts of the Senate bill do include the explicit restriction. A provision providing funding for the Indian Health Service, for instance, notes: "Any limitation pursuant to other Federal laws on the use of Federal funds appropriated to the Service shall apply with respect to the performance or coverage of abortions." A section appropriating money for school-based health centers says the funds "may not be used to provide abortions." That's the sort of sentence that should have been added to the community health center section—but it wasn't.
"It seems that this is something that slipped by," Jost says, "because elsewhere in the bill they made [funding] subject to [the Hyde amendment]."Posted by: Denise at March 17, 2010 4:08 PM
Who knows maybe the light bulb will finally go on for Stupak and he will come to the realization that democRATS are not really his friend or even his ally.\
Maybe Bart will do a cost/benefit analysis and come to the conclusion that these 'progressive/liberals' have lost touch, not just with their constituents, but with reality itself.
Stuapk's fellow demcRATS are completely unreliable.
He cannot count on them to be loyal to a principle or to him.
Everything BUT abortion is negotiable.
Abraham Lincoln once famously claimed that first and foremost his goal was to preserve the union.
If he could save the Union without abolishing slavery, he would preserve slavery.
If he could NOT save the Union without abolishinng slavery he would abolish slavery.
For liberal/progressive democRATs the one non-negotiable item is preserving abortion on demand and they will do it even if means the destruction the Union.
For them it is more dead babies or nothing.
yor bro kenPosted by: kbhvac at March 17, 2010 5:45 PM
The most glaring problems with Jill's article are (predictably):
Stupak is her source for what Democratic leadership is thinking. Regardless of how you feel about his anti-abort stand, the man has shown time and again that he will say anything to appear on Fox News.
And more important, Stanek believes that everything related to abortion and birth control is a vast conspiracy. A ratinal argument that will win her more credibility as the years go by.
Jill's article is very similar to the one from James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal on the same day. My friends at Sadly No did a fine job taking down his op-ed, in their usual stylish fashion.
And kbhvac, if we have learned anything in the last 30 years, it is that Democrats ARE willing throw abortion under the bus once in a while. Stupak is living proof of this. Social Security and Medicare are the Democratic crown jewels. Abortion is further down the list.
And everyone, say what you will about me and Violet, but we are correct in that the issue here is whether the Senate bill has an explicit restriction on funding or not. But there is no provision for an abortion fund or subsidy - the opposite of a restriction would be a provision. There is no effort to pump more funding into abortion services. The debate is over whether citizens who receive tax refunds, credits, or subsidies for any reason should be prevented from buying private abortion coverage. Stupak's amendment, therefore, is to restrict indirect federal funding of abortion - a new tactic not seen before.Posted by: Dhalgren at March 18, 2010 8:20 AM
Dhalgren said that Mr. Stupak will "has shown time and again that he will say anything to appear on Fox News." Please supply a few examples, Dhalgren. Mr. Stupak seems quite consistent and straightforward to me.
Dhalgren also said, "Stupak's amendment... is to restrict indirect federal funding of abortion." I don't know whether this statement of Dhalgren is correct, but it sounds correct. According to Mr. Stupak on Greta VanSusteren's show on March 19, the current law, which has existed for the last thirty-three years, says that there must be "no abortion as a benefit in a federal health care plan or policy paid for in part by the federal government." So, contrary to what Dhalgren said next, prevention of indirect federal funding is not a "new tactic."
Mr. Stupak says that the Senate bill is a "drastic break from the current law for the last 33 years." For proof, he refers the listener to p. 237 and p. 2071 of the Senate bill: (1) At least one policy must have abortion in it. (2) The federal government will give refundable tax credits to pay for the policy. They aren't tax deductions; they are refunds.Posted by: Jon at March 20, 2010 1:05 PM