I have to say a few words about the Stupak "compromise." I believed that the House Democratic leadership had the votes without bothering with Stupak, but apparently I was wrong. The Hill reported that the Democrats were two votes short of passing the Senate bill early in the day on Sunday. They were able to get Stupak and the votes of 3 or 4 other "pro-life" Democrats by agreeing to get Obama to sign an executive order reaffirming his commitment to current law banning taxpayer-funding of abortion.
Let's be clear about this. I have said some very nice things about Stupak on this blog, and I still believe he is a principled man, as politicians go. But this is a cave, pure and simple, and a cave at the 11th hour when he had all the leverage on his side and when it was most important for him to stand firm. The only way to ensure that government-run health care will not cover abortions is for there to be a specific provision against taxpayer abortion funding in the bill itself. An executive order is meaningless, not even worth the paper it's written on. When there is a conflict between an executive order and a piece of legislation, the piece of legislation always takes priority. If the bill requires taxpayer funding of abortion (which it does), then an executive order cannot nullify that. And of course, this executive order is doubly meaningless because it, unlike the bill passed by Congress, is not permanent. A president can rescind an executive order at any time for any reason. Given this president's extreme pro-abortion record, what reason do we have to trust that he will make any effort to enforce this executive order? He could rescind it next week, next month, or next year. Make no mistake about it, if this executive order were truly binding, pro-choice activists in the House would be up in arms about it. They are not, because they know it is meaningless. As Congressman Joe Pitts put it, “I find absolutely no comfort in this executive order. This puts the fate of the unborn in the hands of the most pro-abortion president in history.”
I am truly saddened by the decision of Bart Stupak and a few other pro-life Democrats to compromise and vote for this bill. Congressman Stupak had shown so much principled leadership on this issue for so long, and then threw it all away on a non-binding executive order in the bottom of the ninth inning. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain by continuing to insist on pro-life language in the actual bill. I know he was under tremendous pressure from his party's leadership. His wife disconnected their home phone because they were getting threatening phone calls. He was facing the prospect of no help from the Democratic party whatsoever in his re-election bid in a swing district -- and possibly being threatened with much worse. In the end, I think he really wanted to vote "yes" (as a big supporter of government health care) and he found a way to justify his vote. The pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List had chosen Stupak to receive their "Defender of Life" award at their annual gala in Washington on Wednesday. They have now rescinded that award, and rightly so.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I find it very discouraging that legislation which would allow millions of Americans to get vital medical care was almost stalled out because a small percentage of them could use it for abortions.
I don't think you understand the way pro-lifers think. Just for a moment, try to think from our point of view. Pro-lifers (and I count myself among them) LITERALLY believe that an unborn child is a human being and deserves the same protection as those of us outside the womb. To us, abortion is murder, and any other "good" that might come from this bill does not justify paying for murder with taxpayer dollars. This is the only position that I can possibly take if I believe that an unborn child is a person.
(I use the word "good" facetiously. I do not believe that this bill is good, even with strong anti-abortion language. I believe that it will be the undoing of the best medical care in the world. However, this is a debate for another time.)
I believe I do understand pro-lifers' thinking. I may not be able to empathize with their views, but I can certainly sympathize with them. I am not a huge supporter of this bill, and I know I can't go toe-to-toe with any of the very knowledgeable authors of this blog on many (any?) political subjects, but I do think that opponents of this bill can, at times, be overly simplistic, then, in the same argument, overly scrutinizing. That being said, don't scrutinize my use of commas. Please.
Post a Comment