Stupak to Vote Yes!

NBC News is reporting that Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak, the leader of twelve pro-life Democrats who have refused to support the final health care bill until their concerns were met, has decided to vote “yes” on the health care bill. Stupak was in negotiations with the White House and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, working out the details of an executive order that would achieve a result that came closer to Stupak’s approach to enshrining prohibitions on the use of federal funds for abortion in a manner reminiscent of the Hyde Amendment. Stay tuned.

Let me also take a moment to say a word about Stupak. A week or so ago, I ran a post commending him for his constancy, even though I disagreed with his reading of the bill. He is a true pro-life champion no matter how you slice it. Someone posted a comment suggesting that Stupak's concerns on abortion were all a ruse to defeat health care. Whoever made such suggestions owes the congressman from Michigan an apology.

Michael Sean Winters

Advertisement

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
8 years 4 months ago
MSW
Assuming the reported abortion modifications that come along are real- Congressman Stupack's holding our for the appropriate language action is looking to be the wise course. He will have done more for the pro-life movement then a lot of Catholic 'experts' who urged everyone to accept far less.
Alas, while I am pleased that the bishops and Stupack did not listen to you MSW or the CHA or the varioius religious sisters who told us to accept the Senate abortion laugauge, I still can not support this legislation.
We keep pretending that this law widens benefits ( it does) AND reduces costs ( alas it really doesn't) Everyone wanted legislation that addressed people losing medical insurance. That was a no- brainer. The challenge was to reign in costs so expanding coverage would not become back breaking to businesses and people. On this point it appears to have failed.
Read today's NYT op-ed page. The tax increases are real. The expansion of coverage is real. The former head of the CBO outlines almost 700 billion in ''savings'' that are baked into this plan to save money .  Read them and honestly tell me if you believe they will occur. Timing differences, promises of long term care entitlement being offered with no offsetting costs since that won't happen for more years, '' even more transfers from social security taxes to fund health care , etc.
Look if someone says they don't care that we are imposing a crushing new entitlement program on the country but they think health care is a fundamental right so they don't care about the cost- I can disagree but at least respect they are honest.
To pretend this will reduce costs or not cost '' anything'' is disingenuous.
Have both parties used this type of slight of hand when they pass legislation- of course. We have done this for years in my home state of New Jersey. It appears that the budget people who pushed this type of accounting in Trenton for years have moved to the Potomac.
Brian Thompson
8 years 4 months ago
This is good if, and only if we get a pro-life or neutral result from this. 
I think the bill as it is is terrible, terrible, terrible but it that is on prudential grounds, and so I can live with it if someone else makes another (though in my opinion wrong) judgement. However, there are objective lines that cannot be crossed. period.
So long as whatever they offered him brings about his goals in a way which is legally strong, I can accept deficient legislation.
Vince Killoran
8 years 4 months ago
I never understood why Stupek took campaign money from insurance companies that help facilitate abortions (e.g., BCBS of MI).  He was so keen on not "enabling" abortion providers but he benefited from their cash-and helped to promote their interests.
David Nickol
8 years 4 months ago
In fairness, Stupak was saying things that raised questions about where he stood on health care reform. From a story in the Wall Street Journal about two weeks ago: ''In an interview today, Stupak said abortion isn’t the only issue that will keep him from voting for the Senate bill if Speaker Nancy Pelosi brings it to the House floor. 'It’d be very hard to vote for this bill even if they fixed the abortion language,' he said. Asked whether there was any way he would vote for the current package, he had one word: 'Nope.'”
 
It's going to be interesting to see what the attitude toward Stupak will be if the deal in the works at the moment results in passage of the bill tonight. I suspect that the USCCB and pro-life Catholics will consider it a victory and regard Stupak as a hero, and organizations like the NRLC will maintain that Stupak ''caved'' and betrayed the pro-life cause. 
James Lindsay
8 years 4 months ago
The White House found a way for him to save face on Community Health Centers, which he had mistakenly thought provided abortions. They haven't in the past and certainly won't in the future. There is still the medical charities fund problem, however the order may take care of that.
Vince Killoran
8 years 4 months ago
Thanks Peter. I should have been clear in my first post: I support the legislation (actually, I wanted a single payer plan) and I thought Stupak was on shaky ground.  My only reason for mentioning this relationship he has with insurance companies that cover abortion was to chide him(not that he's reading my posts!) for what seems like inconsistency on his part.
Pearce Shea
8 years 4 months ago
I don't know, Vince. That seems like the same, flawed argument people make about giving to CCHD. Yes, some CCHD-supported charities have dubious histories and policies (including supporting abortion), yes some of Stupack contributors participate in abortion. That does not mean that we ought to tear down the CCHD nor that Stupack and an insurer can't have mutual goals which are morally acceptable. 

Advertisement

The latest from america

 A photo panel shows Pennsylvania Bishops Ronald W. Gainer of Harrisburg, David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh, Joseph C. Bambera of Scranton, Alfred A. Schlert of Allentown, Edward C. Malesic of Greensburg and Lawrence T. Persico of Erie. The Pennsylvania attorney general released a grand jury report Aug. 14 on a months-long investigation into abuse claims spanning a 70-year period in the six dioceses. (CNS photo/courtesy of the dioceses)
The state’s attorney general said that his office’s two-year investigation identified 301 priests who abused children and more than 1,000 victims.
One of the leading novelists of our age on faith, fiction and his distrust of religious institutions.
James T. KeaneAugust 14, 2018
Panel members Ivor Frank and Alexis Jay at a public hearing of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (courtesy of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse)
The new report finds evidence of appalling sexual and physical mistreatment of students as young as 7, as well as a culture of secrecy, at two abbey schools.
David StewartAugust 14, 2018
The Gospel calls on all of us to get past “analysis paralysis,” where direct action is always put off in favor of more research and discernment.
Mary M. McConnahaAugust 14, 2018