Stupak to Vote Yes!

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.