Friday, March 12, 2010

What will happen to pro-life Democrats?

Representative Bart Stupack (D-MI) has been leading an important fight to keep tax payers from being forced by the federal government to fund abortions. It is yet to be seen whether or not he and others will be successful.

From National Review Online:

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. “I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,” he says. “Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.” The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, “are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.”

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. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

If Obamacare passes, Stupak says, it could signal the end of any meaningful role for pro-life Democrats within their own party. “It would be very, very hard for someone who is a right-to-life Democrat to run for office,” he says. “I won’t leave the party. I’m more comfortable here and still believe in a role within it for the right-to-life cause, but this bill will make being a pro-life Democrat much more difficult. They don’t even want to debate this issue. We’ll probably have to wait until the Republicans take back the majority to fix this.”

“Throughout this debate, even when the House leaders have acknowledged us, it’s always been in a backhanded way,” he laments. “I’m telling the others to hold firm, and we’ll meet next week, but I’m disappointed in my colleagues who said they’d be with us and now they’re not. It’s almost like some right-to-life members don’t want to be bothered. They just want this over.”

And the politics of the issue are pretty rough. “This has really reached an unhealthy stage,” Stupak says. “People are threatening ethics complaints on me. On the left, they’re really stepping it up. Every day, from Rachel Maddow to the Daily Kos, it keeps coming. Does it bother me? Sure. Does it change my position? No.”


rmc said...

What a tragedy that we have come to this place in time. It shouldn't have beent his way. Many people in their 50's and 60's find that what made money for them when they were in their 20's and 30's doesn't make money for them in their 50's and 60's because of the way times change. Those who find themselves in this situation of struggling with unemployment often find the cost of the basic need for healthcare unaffordable. The Republicans did nothing to help when they had the opportunity. And many pro lifers only seem to be pro life up until the moment you are born. After you are born they are silent about things like the foolish civil war in Iraq we started and the basic need for healthcare. A lot of pro lifers are only pro life up until the time you are born. And so what is left for those desperate for affordable healthcare, only what some call obamacare. It didn't have to be this way. A little bit of caring on the part of republicans and some consistancy abd caring on the part of prolifers would have resulted in the unaffordability of healthcare being dealth with a long time ago. In other words, this would be a good place to consider the "take the logbeam out of your own eye first" teaching of Jesus.

Todd Pruitt said...

We'll have to disagree on this one.

DreamCamelot said...

The life issue is so important that I just can't allow it to be misrepresented in this fashion.
1. For those in tough economic conditions, we have a health-insurance-welfare system already for children (CHIP), adults (medicaid), & seniors (medicare), plus ER departments are legally obligated to pay whether you can pay or not. Republicans have generously supported the above programs, to include Pres. Bush.
2. The "pro-life" issue involves whether or not to legally permit the taking of another life via abortion. This often involves lives that are capable of surviving outside of the womb. To try to semantically link it to an economic/policy issue such as health-care funding is a bridge way too far. It only serves to confuse and distort a truly life or death issue. I think it is fair to say that better to be not aborted and without healthcare, than to be aborted, right?

Harley A. said...


To call Obamacare “affordable healthcare” (or any plan coming out of Washington) is a huge oxymoron. There’s one little detail that rarely gets mentioned. I haven’t heard how they (Rep or Dem) intend to pay down the currently >$20 trillion in debt obligation we have on the books today for SS, medicare, Medicaid, and whole host of other social programs enacted by our government in last half of the last century (nearly $100,000 for every man, woman and child alive in the US today). Most folks don’t know this exists (or even what it means) and that’s the way both sides would like to keep it. If you study the history of nations and finance, you will see that someone always must pay the piper eventually. People don’t get that we are not as rich as we appear – we are heavily leveraged by debt. This is a finance issue – not a healthcare issue – most don’t get that. And that’s the way the current administration wants to keep it.

I am a “pro-lifer”. I still care about people after they are born. I give to those in need. You would ask me, as a Christian, to be willing to pay for Obama’s plan for the US. I would, but my family is already $400,000 in debt (our part of America’s debt). I can’t pay for it. Do you get that ?

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” – Alexis de Tocqueville