Emails show Kristen Day, Democrats for Life choosing party over principle – and truth
On October 4 and 12 OH Democrat Rep. Steve Driehaus filed 2 complaints with the OH Election Commission to block the Susan B. Anthony List from erecting the above billboard (click to enlarge) 4 places in his district. (Read my previous posts on this topic here, here, and here.)
Democrats for Life president Kristen Day (pictured right) filed an affidavit with each of Driehaus’s complaints corroborating his contention that Obamacare does not allow taxpayer funded abortions.
But earlier this year Day was working overtly and covertly to persuade Driehaus and pro-life Democrat House members to oppose Obamacare without the Stupak Amendment, which would have ensured no taxpayer funds went for abortions.
And this is the very bill those same Democrats ended up signing – without that amendment.
While attempting to persuade Democrats to their faces, Day was secretly working with SBA List’s executive director Emily Buchanan to pressure those Dems with ads. Here is Day and Buchanan’s email exchange. Click all to enlarge…
Day’s emails demonstrate she knew Obamacare without the Stupak amendment allowed taxpayer funding of abortion. (They also demonstrate she didn’t have a good read on her members, since all eventually bailed, including Driehaus.)
But in Day’s sworn affidavits (read here and here) she denies that which she opposed in Obamacare only 7 months ago. For instance, in Affidavit #2 (click to enlarge):
PPACA is short for Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – Obamacare. Note Day isn’t even hiding behind Obama’s subsequent executive order. She maintains it a “false claim” that Obamacare itself allows taxpayer funded abortions.
In Affidavit #1 Day expounds to say the very bill she previously opposed because she knew it contained abortion loopholes did not (click to enlarge):
I’ve said many times here Kristen is my friend. It pains me to write this post.
But Kristen has crossed the line in supporting her Democrat friends. She is double-crossing the very pro-life group whose help she sought only months ago to stop the very man who is now trying to censor that group, see it fined, and have its president thrown in jail.
And it seems to me that in her zeal Kristen has now brought legal trouble upon herself, swearing in an affidavit to something she previously stated in writing wasn’t true.
Kristen, you need to step back and take a deep breath. You’re now burning bridges with a vengeance. You’ll never be able to work with pro-life groups again. Your credibility is shot – for good.
And for what? Defending a pro-abortion law and the turncoats who voted for it?
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.
This is really awful. Unbelievable that she would do this, to bolster a lawsuit against an organization SHE was working with and AGREEING with on the claims of abortion funding in Obamacare. This is jaw-dropping for me.
This is so sad. I don’t know her well, but Kristen and I were on a panel together at the Students for Life conference last January and she had great things to say. How quickly friends become enemies in Washington…
Can someone explain to me how Stupak-Pitts was a pro-life amendment? Remember the amendment explicitly singled out the killing of preborn children conceived by rape/incest as worthy of taxpayer dollars.
So even WITH the amendment to H.R. 3962 passing on November 7, 2009, these pro-life Democrats did indeed vote FOR tax-payer funded abortion… of rape and incest children.
Cranky Catholic,
The Hyde Amendment, the Dornan Amendment, and other such pro-life “riders” all contain the infamous three “exceptions.” The reason being, without the exception, it would undoubtedly be overturned by the Supreme Court as being incompatible with Roe v. Wade. Whereas with the three exceptions, it can be (and has been) upheld as in conformity with Roe.
Given that the three exceptions constitute less than 5% of all abortions — a tragedy that should not be diminished in anyway — it is the political consensus in the pro-life movement that it would be better to block most public funding of abortion, saving countless lives than to be obstinate insisting on the inclusion of the three-exceptions that will not survive a court challenge and therefore allowing the public funding of all abortions.
It is a choice between saving as many lives as possible or no lives at all.
On votes of such amendments before appropriation bills, pro-life Democrats AND pro-life Republicans vote for such amendments.
Why are people acting as though there was one single entity called “Obamacare”, instead of several different bills? It is not inconsistent to have believed both that the House bill without the Stupak amendment would have allowed abortion funding, and that the Senate bill — the one that was actually passed by both chambers — would not, especially backed up by the Executive Order. They were different bills!
“They were different bills!”
Which all supported abortion. The executive order isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
That rather fails to address the point I was making.
So if candidate A had policies which included:
Broadening the range of crimes which drew the death penalty, and that the appeals process be curtailed.
Doubling the tax rate on incomes below $100,000 and halving it for above that figure
Removal of all social welfare payments and facilities
Introducing school fees at all institutions
Removing tax exempt status from all religious institutions
Banning abortions across the board for any reason whatsoever
and candidate B presented policies which included:
The removal of the death penalty in all states and jurisdictions
Major tax cuts below $100,000 and minor tax cuts above that figure
Simplifying and clarifying social welfare with tax and other incentives to companies who employ more staff and to people who take any work available
Ensuring of free education until the end of high school
Encouraging and finacially supporting religious institutions to provide some social services and participate in policy discussions
Allowing abortion up to 18 weeks plus when the mothers life is considered to be at more than a 75% threat
You people would vote for candidate A?
Jen R.,
I get your point. The bill that ultimately passed was the Senate bill, but not the House bill. But here’s the problem: the House bill had the Capps Amendment before it adopted the Stupak Amendment and the former did explicitly call for public funding of abortions. So the House bill without the Stupak Amendment did fund abortions.
Secondly, Kristen Day originally did oppose the Senate bill as well on the grounds that it funded abortion as did the congressional pro-life Democrats. It was our (I include myself because I am a pro-life Democrat) contention that the Senate bill did not contain sufficient safeguards for protecting the unborn.
Democrats for Life and several pro-life Democrats settled for the Executive Order, arguing tha the Executive Order achieved the same goal that the Stupak Amendment would have, therefore, they argued it was legitimate to support final passage of the health care bill.
The problem is that an Executive Order cannot amend statutory law (nor contradict it) and the last 35 years of abortion jurisprudence has been thus: when Congress funds broad programs, e.g. “comprehensive services,” or “preventative services,” etc, unless Congress explicitly, in unambiguous language, excludes abortion services than the Court, as a matter of precedent, will hold that Congress must fund abortions. Not all justices (partcularly conservative ones) do not hold regard for legislative attempt so the colloquy on the House floor before the vote may hold no weight and the Executive Order, which explicitly states there may be no funding of abortion, does not adequately address all pro-life concerns (as we saw with the temporary high-risk pools). In short, at the absolute best, the Court might uphold the Executive Order which even still is not a bill-wide, permanent ban on abortion funding. The Stupak Amendent was far more preferable and the most obvious course of pro-life action.
However, Kristen Day (as it has been shown above) is no longer even making reference to the Executive Order. She is saying the actual legislation itself did not call for abortion funding. In some sense, this is true — the bill does no state explicitly that abortion is to be funded. But all one has to do is refer back to what I said: abortion jurisprudence holds that congressional silence is an implicit call to funding it. Therefore, voting for the bill was in effect voting for a bill that can be used as a mechanism to fund abortions. And that’s the folly of her position.
Cranium,
I understand the implicit queston behind your hypothetical. We do have very undesirable political candidates. I’m a pro-life Democrat; I am acutely aware of this problem.
I want to make two observations: social policy is not morally equal to legal murder. I would not place more emphasis on Hitler’s economic policies to the point that it overrided the Final Solution — the right to life of the Jews is an overriding consideration.
I would support, without question, the abolition of capital punishment. But I am also aware of the fact that capital punishment, from the beginning of this country as a colony, equals a mere 4 days of abortion. Even if we were to factor in the mass loss of life from the unjust, unnecessary war in Iraq, that itself is a mere 15 days of abortion.
I most certainly do not want to de-value the lives lost in either circumstance nor insist that those issues are not relevant or important. The truth is quite the contrary. But I think one must realize how evil and prevalent abortion really is.
I realized that my earlier comment about “how quickly friends become enemies in Washington” could be interpreted to mean that either Dems for Life or the SBA List is “the enemy.” What I really meant is that it’s a shame that the two groups used to be friendly and co-operative, but are now at each other’s throats. Sorry for any confusion.
Then you do see my point, Eric. The ad does not specify precisely the bill or amendment for which Driehaus voted.
That Driehaus (and true, other D’s and R’s) voted ‘yes’ for an amendment with exceptions is indeed a vote FOR taxpayer funded abortions of rape/incest children.
This makes the SBA’s ad truthful, and SBA would be right in putting many other faces in the ad that Dems for Life supports.
I get what you are saying Eric but there are some distinctions.
The holocaust was an act of ‘evil’ perpetrated against a living group of persons who were targeted for a specific reason.
The vast majority do not equate an abortion to the taking of a walking, talking, human, actual person. They see a fetus as not quite the same. Like it or not.
Despite the scientific arguments that it is an actual human, it has its own unique dna etc etc etc, most people just do not acknowledge that a pre-born human is the same as a post-born human. Really.
The fact that you would ignore the welfare and security of ‘living’ persons – that is, those that are walking and talking – in preference for some developing fetuses which some people want and some people don’t; makes you appear, to some people, similar to something along the lines of, perhaps, ufo conspiracy theorists.
Hi Cran,
Who is this “they” you are always talking about? Who is the “they” you are always referring to? Do you know “them?” Do you say that so you are part of the “vast majority” out there? There is a “vast majority” right here.
Why do we care again what “they” think??!! Why do we care again how we appear to “them??!!”
Who cares about preborn babies? I DO!
Who cares about about all living persons from conception to natural death? I DO!
Hi Carla,
“they” are the numerically larger group of people in society – that’d be the “vast majority” - whose opinion varies from ‘well I don’t like it but if people must’ through to ‘full choice, no restrictions!’.
“them” is pretty much everyone who is not on this or similar sites or in the groups related to these sites.
“they” don’t really care what you think, any more than you care what “they” think.
Eric, thank you for your thoughtful answer. The Senate bill, with the Nelson Amendment, does not fund abortions, but some such as yourself have argued that it leaves open loopholes through which abortion could theoretically be funded if someone decided to exploit those loopholes. Perhaps it does; though I have read several of those arguments and found them unpersuasive, I am not a lawyer. It seems to me that there are several possible ways to deal with this situation. SBA List, et al. have chosen the most destructive way I can imagine: pretending that voting for a bill which, depending on how you interpret it, may have some loopholes which may be exploited is exactly the same as actively voting for publicly-funded abortions. What if, instead of trying to defeat those pro-life Democrats for being insufficiently pure (never mind that the only way to be sufficiently pure would have been to defeat health care reform and lose the possibility to make progress on that issue for perhaps another couple of decades, which does after all have consequences for both born and unborn lives), they had decided to work with those Democrats on closing the loopholes?
(never mind that the only way to be sufficiently pure would have been to defeat health care reform
Defeating PPACA would have meant defeating that version of reform, not defeating reform entirely. There were other reform packages that “prolife” Dems could have supported instead of PPACA if they had chosen to.
and lose the possibility to make progress on that issue for perhaps another couple of decades,
Depends on what you mean by “progress.” If you mean goverment takeover of health care against the will of the people, you may be correct. If you mean more patient-centered types of reform that don’t necessitate government takeover of insurance companies and the health care delivery system, you are likely not correct. The Repubs submitted 30+ bills related to health care reform. Reform that is less government-centered than PPACA is still reform, even if Dems, prolife or otherwise, refuse to label it as such.
they had decided to work with those Democrats on closing the loopholes?
PPACA creates a framework of bureaucratic authority. It’s impossible to close loopholes when the legislation empowers partisan bureaucrats to administer implementation of the law and formulate crucial policy decisions and definitions (for example, what constitutes preventive health care or what the minimum benefit package will be). When the legislation consists of thousands of pages, you aren’t talking about just a couple loopholes. The legislation leaves proabort administrators numerous avenues to cover abortion and/or promote abortion on the tax payer’s dime.
The Senate bill, with the Nelson Amendment, does not fund abortions, but some such as yourself have argued that it leaves open loopholes through which abortion could theoretically be funded if someone decided to exploit those loopholes.
It’s not just theoretical. Sen Mikulski refused to exclude abortion from her amendment. HHS has the authoritiy to determine if abortion is an essential or medically appropriate “service” that should be covered by private and government insurance plans.
The entire HC bill severely limits freedom and privacy. I was shocked that pro-life groups was even willing to play ball with the Obama administration, considering the pro-euthansia, pro-eugenic forces behind this bill, and considering the Obama trackrecord on life, ..uh em, or honesty? We would have saved a lot of time and money if pro-life groups just told its members to join tea partiers in screaming “kill the bill.” Perhaps the mobilization of even more people against this takeover would have been more effective. As far as funding abortions, we already do fund abortions in a variety of ways, and it is all in how the code it, believe me, no matter what the law says there are ways around it.
Hi Cran,
So do you always talk about “them” so you feel as though you have us outnumbered here or something? A superiority with the “vast majority?”
Oh and “they” obviously do care what we think or “they” wouldn’t be trolling here now would they?
:)
If there are so many of “them” why do they repost under different names? Lol!
A picture is worth a thousand words: the photograph of hags Pelosi and Richards looming over Obama while he signed the paper is all we needed to see to know the truth.
And I value all humans, even the little bitty ones and even the big smelly ones.
Carla and ninek, what you seem to have failed to grasp is that the “they” is – the “vast majority” - whose opinion varies from ‘well I don’t like it but if people must’ through to ‘full choice, no restrictions!’ of which only a very small number post on, or even read, sites such as this.
So, no I don’t have you outnumbered ‘here’. But you are outnumbered ‘out there’.
So, obviously, because the majority of people out there (according to you) are just peachy with killing off babies before they’re born, that makes US the ones who are wrong in the head?
“So, no I don’t have you outnumbered ‘here’. But you are outnumbered ‘out there’.”
I disagree cranium (Carla please note his name is with a small ‘c’ — geesh)
I’m gonna put all children under 14 and the preborn humans on our side because they still know right from wrong.
Again – ‘the “vast majority” - whose opinion varies from ‘well I don’t like it but if people must’ through to ‘full choice, no restrictions!’
So, despite your attempts at inflammatory language, no, the vast majority are not ‘just peachy with killing off babies before they’re born’ – but they do accept it. And when the circumstances arise, many will avail themselves of the option.
Not WRONG in the head, just of a different opinion.
Most children under 14 have not cemented their opinions on a number of issues. The circumstances they find themselves in later will dictate how many of their opinions and positions, on many things, change.
“The circumstances they find themselves in later will dictate how many of their opinions and positions, on many things, change”
Or what society tells them is OK.
I too have considered Kristin a friend, but future work together is probably out of the question.
Jill, I commend you on a very well written expose of Kristen Day’s & DFLA’s flip-flop on Obamacare. That you are/were personal friends with Kristen but you choose to write the truth, speaks to your integrity and credibility as a pro-life journalist. As I have argued with others about DFLA’s interjection into the SBA pleadings and their continued apologetics for turncoats and Obamacare; we need to remember this is not a typical pro-life family skirmish. We are talking about the expansion and inculcation of abortion and its funding into the fabric of our healthcare delivery system. To provide political cover for Obama, Reid and the formerly pro-life Dems who abandoned principle is also an abandonment of pro-life principles on the part of DFLA and its spokespersons. You are right to note that they just seem to keep digging a deeper and deeper hole. And for what? To defend actions which are indefensible?