Home / Culture and Society / Life of ObamaCare Relies on Abortion Language: All Eyes on Bart Stupak

Life of ObamaCare Relies on Abortion Language: All Eyes on Bart Stupak

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Late last week, the National Review summed up the fight over a government takeover of health care this way: "The attention is on the Senate, but the battle is in the House." You see, Democrats want to force the House to vote on the bill already passed by the Senate by March 18 –– the day the president leaves for an overseas trip. And part of the ObamaCare battle is the abortion language — it clearly allows federal funding for abortion.

News broke early yesterday morning announcing that Representative Bart Stupak thinks a "compromise” can be reached on the issue of abortion funding in the Democrats' Senate version of the health care bill. “I’m more optimistic than I was a week ago,” Stupak said in an interview between meetings with constituents in his northern Michigan district. Hmmm… while many were speculating the meaning behind the so-called "compromise," including myself, it looks like Stupak had an interview with The Weekly Standard yesterday, where he clarified what was really going on. "Obviously they don’t know me," Stupak said in his interview. "If I didn’t cave in November, why would I do it now after all the crap I’ve been through? Everyone’s going around saying there’s a compromise — there’s no such thing," Stupak said. What's changed between this week and last, Stupak went on, is that he had his first real conversation with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Congressman Henry Waxman about fixing the bill.

The latest health care "drama" began to unfold directly following the health care summit “sham” –– plus C-SPAN, minus the beer –– and President Obama’s news conference, escorted by “people in the white coats,” urging Congress to allow an "up or down vote" on the Democrats' health care bill. Since then, two key words have been in the limelight: one that has the power to give “life,” the other to “kill.” Pundits, politicians, and American citizens have been discussing and debating reconciliation and back into the health care debate is the dreaded and highly controversial abortion issue.
Stupak has made it clear that “he and a dozen other Democrats who voted yes the first time will vote no on the Senate health care bill because it provides taxpayer funding for abortion." Last week it was the clash over who was telling the truth, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Stupak were practically calling each other liars. Nancy Pelosi got irritated (what else is new) during her weekly news conference, claiming, "There is no federal funding for abortion. That is the law of the land. It is not changed in this bill." Three hours later, Stupak fired back. “She’s incorrect,” he said. “I’d ask the speaker to direct her attention to page 2069 through page 2078. There are two ways in those pages where you pay for abortion. Number one, you get tax breaks that subsidize your insurance policy that will pay for abortion. Number two, when you read the legislation, one dollar per month for all enrollees, must go into this fund for ‘reproductive care,’ which includes abortion coverage.”

What a difference a week makes. Ironically, the life of ObamaCare is partly dependent on abortion –– Stupak and other pro-life Democrats. Last week, the question remained on the House floor: will abortion kill ObamaCare legislation, which the majority of Americans oppose? Apparently the abortion language has not been fixed yet, which leads me to another question: will the pro-life Democrats stand firm on their convictions (moral code) or will they sell out like Senator Ben Nelson did? Considering all of the backroom deals, bribes, and other shenanigans that took place in order to pass the Senate's version of the health care reform bill, it is hard to say what will happen next. As we get closer to the new Obama deadline –– eight days away –– and as the Democrats get more desperate, you can bet the fight over ObamaCare will get much more ugly.

Powered by

About Christine Lakatos

  • Dr. D: YES Big room with pots, but I know it doesn’t work that way. Just thinking outside the box.

    Jeannie: I added the war, I hate war!

  • Problem is, Christine, that would be all well and good if all tax revenue was allotted for a particular use as soon as it came in. Perhaps if the government had a room full of big pots in the Treasury marked ‘Defense’, ‘Homeland Security’, ‘Environment’, ‘Health Care’, ‘Abortion’, ‘Bailouts’, ‘Ideological Interference in Children’s Education’, ‘Pork’, ‘Escorts’ etc. Unfortunately, it doesn’t quite work like that!

  • Christine,

    You have an excellent idea. Where is our opt-out of war and pursuit of foreign oil?
    Now, that’s legislation that we can all get behind, right?

  • Anyone saying that it does, is trying to sway opinion and scare people.

  • Federal funds will not be used for abortion. The language is very clear about this fact.

  • Dr. D: I think that is a good idea: we should have an “opt out” form where anything that involves “killing” like abortion, wars, and the death penalty, we could check the boxes of which we want our personal tax money to go to. Kind of like our drivers license where we select whether we want to be organ donors or not. Too far fetched, I know, but just a thought. lol

  • Well, El B, American right-wingers do tend to be very proprietory about THEIR tax dollars.

    They forget that it’s not just THEIR tax dollars. It’s everyone’s.

    Curious that there are a lot of people, especially on the left, who are ethically and morally against war and the military in general. I’m sure they’d rather their tax dollars weren’t spent on those things. But you just don’t get that sort of glowering resentment from them.

    Jamison, I’m sure that in theory, you could ‘opt out’ of any of your personal taxes going towards abortion funding. Perhaps you could fill out a form every time you got paid, or bought property, or sold property, or imported something, or…

  • Here is what scares me about you:

    “they INSIST my tax dollars fund something I am ethically and morally against.”

    you have no idea how the system works because everyone could make that claim about something and nothing would get done. Get a majority of people who support your opinion in power otherwise your morals and ethics mean squat in the larger scheme of things

  • zingzing

    ever heard of “faith-based initiatives?” guess not…

  • Here is what scares me about the left… this health care bill could have been passed ages ago if they just took out the abortion funding. But they leave it, tooth and nail, and not the left among themselves has to fight and bicker about this abortion language. Just leave it out and you’ll pass it! But no, they INSIST my tax dollars fund something I am ethically and morally against.
    If a woman wants an abortion and pays for it herself, that is sad in my eyes but it is her decision and she and her God can duke it out when she is called before Him. But do not take MY tax dollars to fund it. Unless the left is okay with their tax dollars going to fund Christian mission trips people at my church go to. I am sure the thought of people spreading the word of Christ on the tax payers dime makes them foam at the mouth.

  • Christine,

    What about my comment? HMMMM? lol 🙂

  • Good one B!

  • Baronius

    John – The government is no more obligated to pay for abortions than it is required to buy people guns.

  • John Wilson

    IMO Stupak is just postering. The abortion restriction is unconstitutional on the face of it. Abortion is legal and a constitutional right. Also covered by the 14th amendment.

    And so a constitutional Originalist Strict Constructionist SCOTUS should decide. Unless they rip off the mask of Judicial Restraint and reveal Judicial Activists underneath who are eager to Legislate From The Bench.

  • clarkt78

    Acts like Liberman

  • Not does not. Just does not. I wouldn’t be me without an extra word or two sometime…:)

    I disagree with you respectfully.

  • Christine,

    You are opposed to abortion, right?

    We are talking about killing unborn babies here, not personal income.

    when you read the legislation, one dollar per month for all enrollees, must go into this fund for ‘reproductive care,’ which includes abortion coverage.”

    Reproductive care is giving women prenatal care.

    Are you opposed to this?

    Really Christine, place yourself in the shoes of a woman that may be of low-income or not does not have stellar insurance coverage. What do you think she should do? What until she’s ready to pop and then call a cab to bring her to the nearest emergency room where her care will now cost all of us even more?

    The health care summit was not a sham, instead it was an attempt to get through to the Republicans, Conservatives and Dino’s in this country.

    The simple fact here is that if we don’t reform health care, then we are all going broke!!!

    There is no do over. This bill will move us toward the direction we should have going in thirty years ago. It will pass and then it will be Amended, just like every other piece of legislation in our country.

  • anna

    Stand FIRM, Bart. You’re the MAN, and I’m voting for you in 2012 — whether you actively run or not!

  • OMG, I see Nancey and Obama…I don’t want to over-react or nothing like that!

  • I know, Christine, I was just teasing. I’m in a really good mood tonight, and that’s why I don’t want to read your article yet! I want to stay in this good mood. Will I? :)LOL

    How you been? I was getting worried about you. Glad your back now! :)It seems like there are few women here in politics.

  • Jeannie: not all teachers just the real bad ones, of which as you know I know a few this year. No offense really. Guess I could of said it was like trying to get rid of a bad parent or husband. lol

  • Silas,

    Why can’t I leave a comment in your blog?

  • Christine,

    I heard that!

    it is worse then trying to get rid of a rotten teacher with tenure.


  • The point is, Silas, you can’t really reconcile public and private interests. The end result is bound to be half-ass.

    Of course, if private interests were less acute and more cognizant of the public good, the gap could hopefully be bridged.

    But since they’re not and are in fact diametrically opposed to one another, it’s always a tug of war.

  • #13. El, tag your it!

  • And how does all this apply to abortion? It’s simple. If we had more disposable cash to invest in our kids they would be educated enough to realize the ramifications of sex before marriage. Until we achieve a generation of informed young adults, abortion will continue to be a thorn in our sides.

  • Indeed they are, Roger. It’s just amazing to me how inflated everything has become. And it does go back to our incessant “size matters” mentality. Take detergents, for instance. Why are they 3X concentrated and in smaller environmentally friendly packaging as opposed to the super-duper 128 oz value size? Years ago companies got us to believe that bigger is better. They sold stuff like size mattered. What was the difference? Water content. Liquid detergent was filled with lots of water and a little chemicals. Powdered was crushed peanuts shells combined with soap. Why didn’t they just do it all along? Would we be in the trash heap now? Oh, but no, Americans are excessive. We always think bigger is better.

    So the bottom line back to health care. Just what DOES a pill cost? Just how much of our insurance premiums go to actual administration as opposed to “lobbyist” or commercial advertiser? K Street is rich with corporate cash to pay off Congress. Madison Avenue is rampant with corporate Svengalis that come up with over the top commercials designed to rope the consumer into yet another unnecessary purchase. If we don’t change the very fabric of our society, we might as well throw in that Chinese made Egyptian hand towel we bought in the Martha Stewart Home Collection Center at our local Target located right across the street from WalMart – America’s new church..

  • ” . . . if the abortion debate derails “ObamaCare” so be it. The plan is flawed to begin with. It’s time for USA-Care to be at the front and center of the debate without pharmaceuticals and insurance at the table.”

    But then, you’d have to wait another twenty years, Silas, for such a thing to happen.

    And why is this expectation that the bills we pass ought to be perfect. They never have been and never will be.

    They’re always flawed.

  • Personally, Christine, I find this whole health care reform process to be a complete fraud on the American public. They’ve all made their decisions. They just have to figure out how they’re going to shove it down our throats.

    Since when have any tax payers had a say in where their money went?

    Is that a rhetorical question?

  • “US “pro-life taxpayers” don’t have to pay for it.”

    Since when have any tax payers had a say in where their money went?

  • Silas: thanks for your insightful insight.

    ObamaCare has such a nice ring to it. It is better than the “Democrat’s Health Care Reform Bill.” Too long and and doesn’t sound warm and fuzzy. And I could use other names for its title, but the BC editors may have to [bleep] them out.

  • …and as the Democrats get more desperate, you can bet the fight over ObamaCare will get much more ugly.

    The first problem is that this is NOT ObamaCare. It’s a sell out to the health care industry. We can try and pin this on Barack Obama all we want but careful study of his statements during the campaign compared to this bill prove one thing — it ain’t ObamaCare.

    I agree with Stupak in his voicing concerns over federally funded abortions. While I will fight to my death for a woman to have the right to choose, I will fight equally hard to allow the opposition to present their case. The bottom line is that the parameters in place since Roe v. Wade are the law of the land.

    Rather than perpetuate this senseless war of words between enemy camps — why not a new approach? It’s all about educating our young and their parents. If a girl has a baby under the age of 18, make the parents financially responsible as well as the father of the baby. If both natural parents are under 18, place responsibility where it belongs — on THEIR parents. After all, is it not up to the PARENTS to insure that their respective children know about sex and its practices?

    As distasteful and disturbing and the whole concept of abortion may be, at the heart of the debate is an individual woman’s right to have domain over her body. To go back to the days of back alley abortions is unacceptable in an advanced society as ours.

    So if the abortion debate derails “ObamaCare” so be it. The plan is flawed to begin with. It’s time for USA-Care to be at the front and center of the debate without pharmaceuticals and insurance at the table.

  • Yeah, that was kind of stupid, even for a politician.

  • Great point, Clavos, it is worse then trying to get rid of a rotten teacher with tenure.

    “But we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it!” Nancy Pelosi quote: March 9th, 2010

    I am still laughing at that one!

  • Well, that would be one stumbling block the Democrats would have to get over, it seems, if they want to have it their way.

  • Clavos

    If I were there, I’d just press for having it approved, even with the Stupak amendment. One can always try to reverse it later on.

    C’mon Roger. You know full well that once legislation is enacted, it is extremely difficult to get it rescinded.

  • Ruvy: I was actually hoping that the “stupid overpaid congressmaggot” (your words–lol) would “kill” this stupid, costly and corrupt bill!

    Ruvy: Hope you are well, been reading your article and comments,but too many things going on for me to comment.

    Hi Jeannie: chat later

    Mr. Wilson: You can have all the frkn abortions you want, but US “pro-life taxpayers” don’t have to pay for it. It is called the Hyde Amendment.

  • John Wilson

    SCOTUS can overturn this clause because it interferes with a womans constitutional right to abortion.

  • Christine,

    Abortion is wrong, however so is for-profit health care!

    I haven’t read this article yet, so I can only say right now that the issue of abortion is not going to deprive this nation from quality affordable health care any longer.

    :)I’ll be back tonight or tommorow, after I watch Roger’s video on the Reali$t’$ thread. I bet you can’t wait!

  • Are you going to allow some stupid overpaid congressmaggot to stop you all from jumping off the cliff like crazed lemmings? You know his fax number. Fax him to death!

    Talk the fucker into supporting his commander-in-chief already and jump off the cliff into penury.

    Jump!! Jump!! We’re waiting!

  • Because they are idiots!

  • I don’t see why this issue should make a difference, Christine.

    If I were there, I’d just press for having it approved, even with the Stupak amendment. One can always try to reverse it later on.

    So really, I don’t see why this public-funding-of-abortions issue should derail the legislation.