The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
16 years of pro-life advocacy comes to fruition
Nov. 10, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionWASHINGTON -- After 16 years in Congress struggling with his party and even sometimes with his church over his status as a pro-life, Catholic Democrat, Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan was able to put his convictions to powerful effect in the passage of the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
With the fate of the House version of massive health care reform legislation hanging by a thread, Stupak managed to bring together a crucial number of votes to pass the bill Nov. 7, by a vote of 220-215, but only after Democratic leaders agreed to permit a vote on his amendment to strictly prohibit any federal funds from going to fund abortions. The amendment passed and Stupak's votes for the final bill came through as promised.
In a Nov. 9 phone interview with Catholic News Service, Stupak said the key to persuading 64 Democrats to support his amendment was the argument that it would change nothing in current law. Since 1976 the Hyde amendment to appropriations legislation has prohibited federal funding of abortion, but it must be renewed annually.
Cardinal George praises health care vote with ban on most abortion funding
Stupak's amendment, which passed 240-194, would prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for most abortions, including barring abortion coverage from insurance plans which consumers who purchase on their own using government subsidies. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other pro-life organizations had threatened to oppose any final bill that did not include such provisions.
The Senate will now take up its own version of health care legislation. Assuming that passes, differences between the bills will be worked out in a conference committee and both House and Senate will have to vote again on the final version.
Stupak said he had been working on building support for his amendment since Labor Day, and spent much of the day of the House vote touching base with every member who he thought might support it.
"We didn't try to reach for more than what is in current law," he said. "A number of pro-choice Democrats voted with us for that reason."
Stupak downplayed the political coup represented by the success of his amendment, saying, "what's important is we're protecting the sanctity of life."
The number of pro-life Democrats in Congress has steadily grown in the last few elections, partly as a result of the Democratic Party's concerted effort to support such candidates in a few select races. But they are still vastly outnumbered and Stupak has long been at the forefront of trying to get recognition that their views deserve a place in a party long been known for opposing most limits on abortion.
Stupak's sometimes lonely role as a pro-life Democrat not only has brought him grief within the party, but within his Catholic Church. He tells of being shunned at a public event by one prelate who, upon being told by an aide that Stupak was a pro-life Democrat, said "there's no such thing" and turned his back on the congressman.
In this case, Stupak said the calls and letters to members of Congress from Catholic leaders and pro-life organizations were very helpful in persuading some members to join his coalition.
Stupak said he recognizes that it's hard for members of Congress to go against their own party, making the support of those 64 Democrats particularly noteworthy.
But he also said there's a lesson for pro-life organizations to not count out congressional Democrats.
"This sends a strong signals that Democrats are critical to the pro-life movement and that we're willing to buck our leadership when it's necessary," he said.
While many pro-life organizations lauded Stupak's amendment, some, notably the American Life League's Judie Brown complained that the House bill still allows government-funded abortions in cases of rape and incest, which are allowed under the Hyde amendment.
If more democrats were like
If more democrats were like Mr. Stupak, I'd jump ship.
While Mr Stupak is to be
While Mr Stupak is to be congratulated for his attempts to limit public funding for abortion don’t break open the Champaign bottle just yet. Top Democratic leaders have gone on record to repeal these limits and confidently declare that in the final health bill abortion will be publicly funded. In fact some feel that Stupaks efforts are being tolerated simply to “get the Bishops off our backs” with the full intention being to reinsert funding at the right moment. Articles like the one above serve such a purpose giving the illusion that the battle has been decided on this contentious issue so that “everyone can now move on to the important issue of Universal Health Care”. In reality
The Catholic Bishops and those who believe in pro-life issues may be outmaneuvered through legislative procedure.
Of course those responsible for this strategy will be the same core of Catholic politicians who have labored for years, led by Ted Kennedy who artfully crafted and deftly shepherded pro abortion legislation to fruition. One can hope that the Bishops who have remained silent on this issue so far will join their fellow clerics and start to speak up or when the dust settles, all will be indirectly or directly paying for abortions.
No one is "pro abortion".
No one is "pro abortion".
A second thought: If more
A second thought: If more Republicans were like Democrats, I might even vote Republican some times....
Please post other comments
Please post other comments that have been written and submitted on this article....
Yes that is my name
Thank you for the article.
Thank you for the article. I'm delighted to read that there are pro-life Democrats in congress. In concur with JM, if there were more democrats like Mr. Stupak, I would jump ship too. By the way, I am curious to know the name of that prelate who turned his back on him.
If you count the number of
If you count the number of uninsured abortions you get 120,000 ..that's 10% of the 1.2 million a year. However less than 20% of insured woman now use their insurance to pay for their own abortion.. this is for privacy reasons.They don't understandably want a record..
So we get 24,000 abortions that if taxes were used at $400 each ..is a measly $12 million dollars. The pro-abortion representives. want to access this measly $12 million as a start and in doing so they willing to put health reform and the Obama administration in danger.Why???
That's what I call an extremist view.. They want to START a funding stream of tax dollars to increase abortion access. That's why they will mount a full course press to overturn the Stupak amendment. [Led by Senator Barbara Boxer Ca].
It ain't the money..it's an access path to a tax supported abortion assembly line..
Let the men pay.. no money? let the men sell their blood or kidney.. No tax money for abortion.. go tell your congress and senate people.
No one's 'pro abortion', Ed
No one's 'pro abortion', Ed Gleason.
In fact taking that tactic to try to win points in the anti-abortion camp has done nothing whatsoever to find common ground with the problem and tragedy of abortion.
It may not change anything in
It may not change anything in the current proposals of the law; but what it would change is the many desperate women would have to turn to dangerous and illegal methods to get the abortion they are convinced they must have.
Whatever happened to the old Catholic principle that it is the circumstances that determine the morality of an act?
There is the principle of
There is the principle of intrinsic evil...which states that certain actions, one being abortion, are always wrong no matter the time, situation, or circumstance. So let us look at your question. What are the possible circumstances that would make an abortion acceptable...NONE!
AB Boulanger; Please ..Stop
AB Boulanger; Please ..Stop with the old clothes hanger, back ally 1960s pitch..
Please please please tell me
Please please please tell me you aren't Catholic. I can only hope...
Rather than a pro-life
Rather than a pro-life agenda, Rep. Stupak represents a growing segment of our political life in both parties that wishes to impose its own interpretation of a God-driven government onto all of the American people, whether we wish to be governed by their interpretation or not. This is a blatant case of Republican subterfuge. Look into Rep. Stupak's co-sponsor of the anti-abortion bill, Joe Pitts. All one has to do is google his name. Don't take my word for it. We need to look take a good hard look at what the total agenda is of these men. And it isn't just anti-choice.
I am a Roman Catholic,
I am a Roman Catholic, married, father of two Ivy League educated daughters. I am and have been always willing to help and aid a teenager or a woman seeking not to abort her fetus. In the past, I have counseled a few and prevented an abortion. Let me also say that my aspiration is to always affirm life and be against any act that threatens or takes life from the human family. I am against War,Capital Executions, Abortion, Nuclear Annihilation Organized Terrorism, IED's, Unmanned indiscriminate bombing of non-combatants and anything that denies human life.
My question is: If the law of the land in 2009 is that a woman has the permission and the support of law to choice to abort her potential child, how can Congress write legislation and create side-stepping laws that would deny any woman complete access to her rights under the current law of the land?
It appears to me that Stupak and other members of Congress are breaking Federal Law and violating the freedoms and rights afforded to all law abiding citizens of the these United States.
I would much rather see all life protected from birth to death. I am just as oppossed to abortion in China {30 million annually} and other nations that hold laws enforcing abortions and family planning controls. But in the United States, Congressman Stupak and his colleagues need to abide by the current law of the land and not seek to deny someone, anyone their rights and freedoms.
So this adjunct rider on federally funded support of abortions does not belong in our desperately needed health care legislation. Let's pass the health care bill and continue to try to reduce and stop abortions. Let make our world a better place, Now!
Just because someone has a
Just because someone has a "right" to something does not mean that they have a right to have it provided free of cost by the government. I have the freedom of speech...does the government provide me with a printing press free of charge? I have the right to assembly--do I get a free hall? I have the right to bear arms--do I get a free gun?
Just because I have the right
Just because I have the right to do something doesn't mean that my fellow citizens should be made to pay for me to do it. I have the right to exercise my religion but I don't expect non-Catholics to pay for me to attend services.
By the way, if this bill gets signed into law, it will be the "law of the land" too. Why shouldn't the other older law be made to jibe with this one if this one better reflects the current sentiment more accurately?
Abortion is a negative right,
Abortion is a negative right, not a positive one. As a negative right, it's still an abomination of constitutional law, but as such, another doesn't have to help you advance that right.
You may have the right to own a gun; that doesn't mean I have to help you buy it.
BTW, it's not a "potential child"; it's a "person with potential." If you got the metaphyhsics right, you'd see the error in your political/moral philosophy.
I'm sure Grover Nordquist
I'm sure Grover Nordquist will be very appreciative.
Remember now everyone who
Remember now everyone who voted for the republican who ran against Stupak or supported his opposition in any way objectively supports abortion and the murder of the unborn. These people should be barred from communion until they confess and vow to never vote republican again ( see Burke r-Vat.).
Remember now everyone who
Remember now everyone who voted for the republican who ran against Stupak or supported his opposition in any way objectively supports abortion and the murder of the unborn. These people should be barred from communion until they confess and vow to never vote republican again ( see Burke r-Vat.).
And Hey, if William McAleer
And Hey, if William McAleer says its so, that ought to be good enough for all of you.(note the sarcasm)
This amendment will most
This amendment will most likely be tempered in the final bill. Although Mr. Stupak says it does not go beyond current law, he is being untruthful. It goes far beyond the Hyde Amendment, in saying that any insurance plan sold through the exchange, cannot cover abortion, even if the premium is completely paid by the individual. If any federal money is used for any premium, abortions cannot be included, except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. What happens when something catastrophic happens to the fetus-and it can. What happens, as one commenter said above, if a woman turns to unsafe means to procure an abortion? Even those of us who are anti-abortion need to face the gray areas of this matter, and realize it is not ours to judge someone whose situation we are ignorant of.
Mr Stupak and Mr Pitts, the co-sponsor of this bill, are residents of the C-Street house. As Shirley suggests, google this group, which is known as "the Family", and see what they think and espouse. You might find things which make you uncomfortable, no matter your political persuasion.
Peace and blessings.
What happens if a woman turns
What happens if a woman turns to unsafe means to procure an abortion?
She may get what she wants for her baby, which might be a deterent that saves a life.
Brian 13: For all of his
Brian 13: For all of his efforts to speak in philosophical terms, he needs to learn how to spell "Metaphysics" correctly.
["If you got the metaphyhsics right, you'd see the error in your political/moral philosophy".]
It'interesting that the moral
It'interesting that the moral authority of the Church is so weak among the people in the pews that the Church must rely on the government as its enforcement arm.
Post new comment