It is funny to witness how so many people, assessing the same set of characters and facts, can reach such extraordinarily different conclusions. The question in attentive Catholic circles was the same, however: Did he cave? The "he" in question is pro-life Congressman Bart Stupak who refused for weeks to accept the Senate’s abortion restrictions "as is" but who negotiated a deal with the White House for an executive order that clarified the parts of the Senate language Stupak thought were problematic.
One of the difficulties of living in this fast-paced, tech-driven culture is that staying up-to-date requires attention to detail. Thus, at the website of the American Principles Project, the homepage still touts their support for Bart Stupak. On their blog, of course, they impugn his integrity. It is far from clear to me that Stupak changed very much. What changed was Stupak’s sense of how the new law treated abortion funding, and that change came about by eliciting an executive order from the President to ensure that the new law is implemented in such a way so as to achieve what all sides said they wanted in the current debate, a ban on federal funding of abortion. Ah, but what did change is that once he was satisfied on abortion, he decided to vote for the health care bill and that, my friends, is what his conservative critics could not abide.
Others were just as condemnatory as APP. The American Catholic website says "Stupak was busy selling out." InsideCatholic’s Deal Hudson wrote "Stupak’s decision betrays Catholics and the faith he calls his own." And over at the Catholic Key Blog, editor Jack Smith has brought the non-judgmental word "perfidious" into the debate. Did any of these Catholics listen to yesterday’s Gospel about the woman caught in the act of adultery?
These conservative Catholics such as professor Robbie George, who runs the APP, and Deal Hudson, who was Catholic liaison for the Bush administration, find themselves this morning in some unusual company. They were not the only ones deriding the Stupak solution and the President’s forthcoming executive order. The President of Planned Parenthood began her statement: "We regret that a pro-choice president of a pro-choice nation was forced to sign an executive order that further codifies the proposed anti-choice language in the health care reform bill, originally proposed by Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska." She went on to say that at least the original Stupak language was not codified, but was unable to explain the difference. And the President of NOW was even more irate. "We are incensed by Obama’s executive order designed to appease a handful of anti-choice Democrats who have held up health care reform in an effort to restrict women's access to abortion," Terry O’Neill, NOW’s President told reporters by email.
Politics makes strange bedfellows as they say. A good rule of thumb in politics, however, is that when you are getting attacked equally from both the extreme right and the extreme left, it means you have landed in the middle. On a contentious issue like the politics of abortion, the middle is the most uncomfortable place to be but it is where a majority of Americans want their politicians to be. I do not believe Stupak "caved" or "betrayed" his pro-life principles, although there is some merit in the observation that President Obama threw his pro-choice allies under the bus: It should be remembered that pro-choice groups hate Hyde to being with, so their sense of disgust is at least grounded in reality.
It appears that Congressman Stupak, like others, became satisfied that the bill that passed, as amplified in the executive order, will not fund abortions with public money. If you have drunk the GOP Kool-Aid which repeats the meme that President Obama is "the most pro-abortion president in history" you probably will not trust him to keep his word about the executive order, although you would be hard-pressed to show how such a course of action would serve the President politically. But, if you set aside your hermeneutic of suspicion, and remember that Cong. Stupak really, really did want to vote for health care reform, yesterday’s agreement does not warrant any of the calumnies being thrown at its sponsors. Stupak is not traitor. The President is not, after all, the "most pro-abortion president in history" no matter how often the meme is repeated. President Obama and the Congressman from Michigan are the people who helped get health care across the finish line. That is no small achievement for the American people.
Michael Sean Winters
Stupak was interrupted on the house floor as he spoke on Democrats being the ones who stood up for life in the health insurance reform bill; he was called ''baby killer.'' I am sorry the clip does not include all his statement on protection of human life at all ages.
He had no intention of killing the bill with his provisions. Indeed, when he realized that the votes could not be had in the Senate for his original proposal, he worked out a deal with the White House to settle his outstanding concerns.
Only those who were hoping to use his provision as a way to kill the bill were disappointed. Rep. Stupak let them know what he thought of this strategy in no uncertain terms. Indeed, this will likely go down as a defining moment for pro-life Democrats and the movement as a whole. It separates those who will actually do something for the unborn (by giving their parents the economic ability to both bring the pregnancy to term and raise the child themselves) from those who wish to use them as a sentimental electoral issue and fundraising strategy.
Last night over dinner he was very happy that the health care bill had passed, saying that this would be a very good thing for the country. But, he said, I don't like to think that we will be paying for abortions.
Well, insurance companies cover abortions, and when we pay our insurance premiums, we are funding abortions, so what's the difference, I asked him. Do we refuse to buy health insurance because abortion is covered?
The difference, he said, is that when abortion is covered by government money, it implies that all of us support a morally controversial procedure. And this isn't the foundation upon which I want "all of us" built.
I agreed with him, but had to bring up the death penalty, which all of us definitely do not support, but which is the law in many states. We're given no choice, until the law is changed, we have to be a part of state sponsored killing.
It may appear that Obama threw his pro-choice allies under the bus, but really he was opening the door to healthcare reform for those of us who do not want "all of us" to be forced to be a part of the funding of abortion.
http://www.ppaction.org/network/hcr10fvng?source=hcr10fv_pphp
To one extent I agree with Winters-since the Executive Order changes Nothing, Rep. Stupak must have changed his mind on the bill itself. Problem is this Mr. Winters: what will you do when PP sues and obtains the $11 Billion in CHC funding for abortions? What do you care right now about the fact that the reform Act fails to restrict the government from conscience violations and the Order does nothing to change that? What do you care that it lets HHS define various elements of health care as including abortion, also not changed by the Order? What do you care about federal funding of abortion insurance plans? What do you care about your July 2009 promise not to support such a bill? Or do you only care that now you can sneer and villify pro-life Catholics?
Mr. Winters, you can spin the abortion battle into a larger far right wing vs. us moderate types if you want. THere's more than enough Kool-aid on both sides for the drinking. And I respect the heck out of Bart Stupak because he stood up not only to the lefties like Pelosi, but to folks like you who were more than willing to let him swing out on his own to get the plan passed. But come November, I guess we'll see where the ''majority of the American people are''. This Dem majority has been the most polarizing force in my young political life that I can remember. Obama has shown that the "change" he seeks is change is far from what we imagined. I look forward to seeing them gone & to seeing Republicans hoist the House gavel in victory. This, I believe and pray, is the definition of "pyrrhic victory".
With the unlimited power now granted to corporations to support the candidates of their choice, your prediction of a Republican plutonomic victory may well hold true. Not a victory for anybody but the moneyed elites. Then they can continue their highly successful program of turning this into a third world country. Where have the last thirty years of neoliberalism, unfettered capitalism, free trade, globalism and oil wars left us? Where we are. It will take thirty years more to recover from the second Gilded Age, if we ever do. Of course, your sainted party will be more than happy to resume the downward spiral at a much faster rate than the spineless democrats.
1. Public information and debate is essential. The American media (perhaps this blog included) did a poor job of analyzing the merits of the overall legislation. We can assume that the media will more than likely support the abortion position, to the point of ridiculing the pro-life.
2. The American Bishops are the heroes for sticking to their sophisticated understanding of the hidden nuances in the Senate bill, far better than any Catholic publication.
3. Promises are not enough, "lock it down" in Stupak's words.
4. Name calling of the kind seen in this blog and others is counterproductive. Right to life organizations have been called appendages of a political party, while the bishops have been assailed with intemperate language.
5. The Bishops need to redouble efforts to reach all the constituencies in the Catholic Church with educational programs on how to defend life in this pluralistic society.
Obama is deceiving prolife Catholics-again. Caveat emptor!
The Republican dream seems to be a country without unions (the "right to work"), without laws or regulations affecting corporations (deregulation), and without the right of individuals to sue corporations for damages (tort reform). If that dream is realized, what would be the condition of workers and consumers in this country? Corporations logically pursuing their mandate of higher profits for owners/stockholders will look to reduce wages and benefits, and will almost certainly cut corners even more in areas of workplace safety, product safety, and adverse environmental impact (all of these points can be amply and easily documented). Not a dream I share, and I'm not sure why anyone not already rich would.
I think that is causes some discomfort among Catholics, not only when conservative Catholics try to diminish its importance but, even "liberal" Catholics who pay little attention to it or support the labor movement as long as it's "not in my backyard" (e.g., Catholic colleges and hospitals). What ever happened to labor reform legislation? Will the USCCB put their resources toward passing a strong measure?
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/baby-killer-shouted-stupak-during-health-c
You say: "Problem is this Mr. Winters: what will you do when PP sues and obtains the $11 Billion in CHC funding for abortions?"
You seem to be certain that Planned Parenthood will sue, the courts will rule in their favor, and CHCs will begin performing federally funded abortions. Will you put a time frame on this for us? When will the suit or suits be brought, how long will it take for them to be won, and when will the first federally funded abortion be performed at a Community Health Center?
If you provide a date by which this is certain to happen, I will donate $100 to the Alliance Defense Fund or the NRLC or any pro-life charity you designate if you agree to donate $100 to NARAL if there have been no authorized federally funded abortions at Community Health Centers by the date you name.
If you find the wager unacceptable, by all means ignore it. But it seems to me this is a case where we will actually know who was right and who was wrong. Federal funds will either be used for abortions in CHCs or they will not. You seem to be predicting it is a certainty. I am wondering whether - if it doesn't happen - you will admit you were wrong or whether (as with FOCA) you will claim the pro-life movement prevented the inevitable from happening.
Pro-lifers have long argued that federal funds should never be used in the act of killing an unborn child. But many of us have taken the president's word that the health care bill will not remove the ban on federal funding of abortions. We are no less faithful Catholics than the people who spend a great deal of time pointing fingers and promoting one political party over the other.
That particular party has spent years giving lip service to the pro-life cause while standing by as millions of babies died. It has continued to use smoke and mirrors while obstructing and obfuscating for months. Those who think there will be a wholesale change in Congress this year are likely to be quite surprised that many of us WILL remember that the Stupaks stood their ground as best they could. We will not return the reins of government to the party that, to serve its own ego, attempted to derail recovery and a plan to bring health care to the poor.
We have an abundance of little gods running around.
When you falsely accuse someone, we are taught, you offend God. And unlike a civil matter in which the president is a public figure, falsely accusing another child of God is a very serious matter whether that child is the president or someone who lives down the street.
Yes
Given that there is undoubtedly a severability clause in the legislation, most of the reforms are safely installed. If the individual and employer mandates are overturned the rest of reform still stands. Indeed, such judicial repeal would be just the impetus needed for a more robust public option or single payer solution funded by the kind of payroll tax that won't fall on constitutional grounds, although I could forsee an opt out for those who are happy with their insurance (provided it is more generous). While many are upset about the growing nature of health care in the economy - as long as it is paid for it is really not a problem. The projections that somehow health care will eat the American economy are a bit alarmist. A boom in exports and manufacturing or some other sector would crowd out the growth in health care.
As for repeal, a bit of math shows that it won't happen under this President's term, since with 41 Republican Senators now and 67 required, there is no way there will be enough to override an Obama veto (since 26 Dems are not up for reelection in 2010). I say this so you don't give money for anyone seeking funding for a repeal movement. Give it to the RNC for 2012 or have a Mass offered for the President's well being and intentions (if you really want personal spiritual development).
If it is OK to call publicly legislators the "N" word and the "F" word and to spit on them, then the next step is simply to go from speech to action.