« | »

AP Gives Stupak Cover For Abortion Vote

First, this shocker (just kidding) from Fox News:

Stupak ‘More Optimistic’ Abortion Fight Will End

March 09, 2010

Rep. Bart Stupak said he expects to resume talks with House leaders in a quest for wording that would impose no new limits on abortion rights but also would not allow use of federal money for the procedure.

Prospects are good for resolving a dispute over abortion that has led some House Democrats to threaten to withhold support of President Obama’s health care overhaul, a key Michigan Democrat said Monday.

Rep. Bart Stupak said he expects to resume talks with House leaders this week in a quest for wording that would impose no new limits on abortion rights but also would not allow use of federal money for the procedure.

"I’m more optimistic than I was a week ago," Stupak told The Associated Press between meetings with constituents in his northern Michigan district, including a crowded town hall gathering where opinions on health care and the abortion issue were plentiful and varied.

"The president says he doesn’t want to expand or restrict current law (on abortion). Neither do I," Stupak said. "That’s never been our position. So is there some language that we can agree on that hits both points — we don’t restrict, we don’t expand abortion rights? I think we can get there."

Residents offered mixed messages on health care Monday during several stops in small towns near the southern end of the district.

Donna Reminder [sic], 77, said she didn’t like abortion but didn’t want Stupak to let the issue keep him from supporting a health bill.

"I’d say go for it anyway. We need it," Reminder said during lunch at a senior center. "Not having good health care is killing a lot of people."

Gosh, we never saw this coming.

And of course the ever-obliging Orchestrated Associated Press is there to give Mr. Stupak cover:

A policy change on abortion, but how radical?

By Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer

March 9, 2010

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama’s health care bill would change federal policy on abortion, but not open the spigot of taxpayer dollars that some abortion opponents fear.

Abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America say the House and Senate versions of the bill represent the biggest expansion of abortion restrictions in years, yet they’re not trying to defeat the measures…

Which, of course, puts the lie to their claim right there.

Major anti-abortion groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Right to Life Committee say the Senate provisions expected to come before the House shortly are a backdoor taxpayer subsidy for abortion. Other abortion opponents disagree.

"I actually think the Senate bill will more effectively prohibit federal funds from going to abortion," said Stephen Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at Catholic University of America in Washington. "That legislation will actually reduce the demand for abortion in the United States."

How convenient that the AP found such an expert, and someone who works at the (in name only) Catholic University.

Here’s a look in question and answer form at a simmering conflict that is vexing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as she and other Democratic leaders try to find enough votes to pass health care…

Q: Does… the Senate bill [allow] taxpayer money for abortions?

A: Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, says money is fungible, and the separation between taxpayer funds and private premiums is only a fig leaf.

"The Senate bill departs from long-standing federal policy by authorizing tax subsidies to help tens of millions of Americans buy private health plans that could cover abortion on demand," said Johnson. "Anyone enrolling in such plan would be required to make separate payments into an abortion fund."

But Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University, analyzed the two bills and concluded the only difference is an administrative technicality.

"What Stupak says is you have to buy a separate policy, and what Nelson says is you have to write two checks," said Jost. "There’s no public funding of abortion."

And people who don’t want to pay for other people’s abortions wouldn’t be forced to do so, Jost added. They could simply pick a plan that doesn’t cover it

Never mind that their tax dollars will still be subsidizing abortions, no matter which government insurance plan they pick.

The insulting thing is that the AP actually thinks this is good enough to fool their average readers. The sad thing is they are probably right.

Q: What are the odds that these disputes can be worked out?

A: Stupak sounded optimistic Monday. "The president says he doesn’t want to expand or restrict current law (on abortion). Neither do I," Stupak said. "I think we can get there."

Abortion opponent Rev. Derrick Harkins, pastor of the Nineteenth St. Baptist Church in Washington, said he believes it ultimately could hurt the anti-abortion cause if the health care bill collapses because of the divisive issue.

"You can’t be blanket pro-life and not address those things that encourage women to make the choice of having an abortion," said Harkins, a board member of World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals. "If you are really looking to reduce the number of abortions in America, one of the things that will make that happen is to have comprehensive health care coverage."

You see, even ‘abortion opponents’ agree that the Senate bill does not expand the current federal law on abortion. (Even though it does include federal funding for abortion, in direct contradiction to the federal law known as the ‘Hyde Amendment.’)

And not only that, but ‘abortion opponents’ themselves agree that Obama-care will actually reduce the number of abortions in America.

So what on Earth is the problem with Mr. Stupak voting for the bill now?

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, March 9th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “AP Gives Stupak Cover For Abortion Vote”

  1. Cincinnatus says:

    Apparently, he’s been bought off; he’s laying the groundwork for his forthcoming flip-flop:

    Stupak: Health bill abortion fight can be resolved

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iJ1cJ9n9sI1uAPv_Fa64wjCy2gggD9EAQUTG1

    Hypocrite and liar.

  2. proreason says:

    Rush is right.

    All of the discussion, negotiation, arm-twisting and big talk is a head-fake.

    If he can dupe the House into signing the Senate bill, no matter what promises are made, the Criminal in Chief will immediately sign it, and not another word will be said. In other words, no reconciliation, no adjusted language, no follow-up bills. Nada. Zilch. Nein. Non.

    Unless, of course, the kinglette follows through on his promises.

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

  3. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Donna Reminder [sic], 77, said she didn’t like abortion but didn’t want Stupak to let the issue keep him from supporting a health bill.
    “I’d say go for it anyway. We need it,” Reminder said during lunch at a senior center. “Not having good health care is killing a lot of people.”

    One, I doubt this person even exists. Two, if she does, I doubt that’s what she said. And three, if this is what the actual public believes, that everyone will get good healthcare, then the public is in for a great big shock when they get the DMV treatment at the doctor’s office.

    And by then, it’s too late. Yet, somehow…even if all this comes to pass and it’s as horrible as we all know it will be, they will find a way to blame it on the republicans.

    • JohnMG says:

      Donna Reminder will be 81 before any of the provisions will go into effect–except of course the curtailed medicare provisions which will be scaled back immediately. By then she might not be alive, or she may be suffering from dementia or Alsheimers, in which case she won’t remember (you’ll have to “Reminder”) what she wished for.

      She must be the one who is using her dead sister’s teeth.

    • proreason says:

      Donna Reminder has a death wish


« Front Page | To Top
« | »