Why can’t Stupak introduce a bill today to add an Amendment to basically repeat the Executive Order… deny federal funds for abortion, protect employees from being forced to participate in abortions against their will, etc???

Oh yeah, because the myth of pro-life Democrats is busted.

One cannot call themselves pro-life and vote for, or run as, a Democrat.

“It’s possible, but it doesn’t strike me as plausible (else why make the deal with Stupak’s group?)”  There are a few good reasons: (1) the biggest is PR - Stupak had become a rallying point and symbol of opposition to the bill, and so snagging him took a lot of wind of the sails of the backlash when it was passed.  (2) The margin of passage could have been 216-215 without Stupak, and that would have induced riots. (3) Finally, Pelosi might have kept chasing Stupak so she could maintain a good rapport with those other votes “in her pocket” (you never know, she might need to force their vote sometime in the future and wanted to establish some good will).

I watched on TV as Rep. Stupak announced first his deal, and his intention to support the bill.  He clearly said that the prohibition against funding of abortion would be in the bill — but it was actually to be in the form of a presidential order.  Why did Stupak have to lie about this?

He is a badly confused individual, and seems a little light in the upper storey.  He allowed himself to be isolated as the Pelosi team worked on him, and he did not get adequate advice on his “compromise.”  He had very strong cards, and threw them away.

Then he actually lied in his first announcement about the deal he had made.  And he continues to misrepresent the difference between a presidential order and a part of a bill.  It is very sad.

I don’t understand how social justice equals Catholics believing that the government should be creating an artificial social justice rather than the church creating true justice for those less fortunate.

Read Benedict XVI’s Deus Caritas Est. He makes a similar point.

I don’t understand how social justice equals Catholics believing that the government should be creating an artificial social justice rather than the church creating true justice for those less fortunate. A government cannot create equality or systems that make things equal. We as catholics can create social justice by giving of ourselves and of our time to those less fortunate. That way is always more personal and caring than anything our government can create. Please, social justice catholics, explain to me how the government will create this equal health care utopia on earth.

JoeyG said: “In any event, we should mind our rhetoric and not give the media a chance to paint us as the rabid, fundamentalist, foaming-at-the-mouth caricatures of the conservative right that they’d love to show the world.  And when it comes to judging or condemning other men’s souls, we should remember in all of this that we have our own souls to worry about, too…”
Sir, you are correct that we must carefully guard our lips and hearts from salvos of unloving diatribes. However, one of our Christian duties is to reprove the sinner. If we are so afraid of condemning sin done by those who have marked themselves as members of our community, then we have failed to understand Christ at his Words and actions. Christ did not condemn the woman caught in adultery, but neither did he tell her to keep sinning. Similarly, the Honorable Stupak defined himself as one who would attempt to not only make life better for the poor, but also protect children from murder. When he failed to stand for those murdered children in their hour of need, he opened himself to criticism. He set the standard for himself for others to hold him by, and when he failed it, he was rightly criticized for it. Most have noted this failure of his without ever turning to “rabid” personal character attacks.
The other issue at stake is the failure of the Honorable Stupak to realize that to support such legislation as Federal Healthcare Insurance turns our Government into “The Grand Inquisitor” of Dostoyevsky’s Brothers Karamazov; such a position of endorsing Government intervention at the expense of doing our personal and communal Christian duty is fundamentally opposed to the Gospel. This preferential option for the local, and relationships, is also what the Catholic Church calls the Principle of Subsidiarity.
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.” - GK Chesterton

All of our actions have ETERNAL consequences.

Lord have Mercy on us.

In my mind, Stupak is another Christ.

Respectfully, Our Lord wouldn’t fly apart like a helicopter with its rear-rotor shot off like Stupak is doing.

I salute those politicians who are spiritually, professionally and politically competent and humbly acknowledge the limitations of their political knowledge.

Sounds like “voter’s remorse” to me. Bart Stupak had the chance to be a true patriot and hero. Instead he decided to wimp out and now he is doing what all cowards do…put the blame on someone else. I’m chagrined that I ever fell for such trickery…but now I know that pro-life and Democrat?...just an oxymoron! and the moron’s name is STUPAK!!

Lay off Rep. Stupak. The Republicans were using the abortion issue to derail the legislation. Stupak got the most he could get. There is no way the Senate was to going to approve the Stupak amendment (previously rejected by the Senate). In my mind, Stupak is another Christ—and is being blasted by both sides in the debate.

By the way, Zippy had a good response to the “You are not really pro-life” subject-dodge:

One thing I can definitely agree with is that we as pro-lifers can do a better job going after private-sector support of abortion and other wickedness. 

That said, the basic issue, as Evangelium Vitae tells us, is the issue of the legality of abortion.  Just as we will never stop all theft and murder through the law, we will never stop all abortion through the law.  But there is a fundamental injustice in a positive legal right to murder someone, which is what the abortion legal regime represents: a fundamental injustice which attacks the common good and the very source of the authority of government itself at its root. 

So while I agree that we should do a better job identifying and boycotting anti-life corporations and products, and that one salutary effect of this hubbub has been a rising awareness of the abortion coverage in private health plans, there is no getting around the fact that the legal issue is a central issue for pro-lifers: that no other issue is more important.  A genuinely pro-life movement will of necessity, as long as murdering some people is protected as a “right” under the law, emphasize the legal issues as among its highest priorities.

‘Could Pelosi have had enough representatives who voted “no” who would have voted “yes” if Stupak hadn’t cut his deal to pass the Bad Bill anyway? It’s possible, but it doesn’t strike me as plausible (else why make the deal with Stupak’s group?).’

Dems in vulnerable districts got a political break by voting ‘no,’ which increases the party’s strength long-term. They and Pelosi owe Stupak for that break. What does Stupak owe pro-lifers who so quickly turned on him for raising the profile of pro-life Dems and extracting a concession from the President?

I think we need to be careful about judging folks’ souls and whether or not they’ve been sold for any amount.  I disagree with and am disappointed in Mr. Stupak.  I know he was under a lot of pressure, but I don’t pity him even while I neither envy him.  I pray for him, though, and hope he sees through his error.

Let’s keep things in perspective, though.  The leadership and the staunchly-PRO-abortion lobbies are the ones who are benefiting from our distraction with being injured by one of our own.  Now people are spending money and campaigning to get Stupak booted from office as an example, but for what?  Politicians are politicians: we’d spend our money better trying to run campaigns of exposure against the leadership and Planned Parenthood, showing the sedition of their agenda.  We could also court people like Mr. Stupak and get him to convert and join our side more staunchly.  Face it, this is politics, and he was bought off, and probably rationalized it to himself all sorts of ways.  I don’t have much faith in finding the political game rules changing anytime soon; we should work on getting the moderates over onto our side.  I know it seems like a bargain with the devil, seeing that they have some other liberal stances.  But in terms of effectiveness and practicality for making inroads toward a more just society, I think this incremental approach the way to go.

In any event, we should mind our rhetoric and not give the media a chance to paint us as the rabid, fundamentalist, foaming-at-the-mouth caricatures of the conservative right that they’d love to show the world.  And when it comes to judging or condemning other men’s souls, we should remember in all of this that we have our own souls to worry about, too…

Great point, Robert! Stupak has revealed his true colors. He may have sold his soul for 30 pieces of silver.

Congressman Stupak, you are the hypocrate, first class idiot or possibly both. Remember when you point a finger at an individual or a group, your other three fingers are pointing in your direction.

Of all the rhetoric pro and con and otherwise, the only person that called it right was Mac’s common sense post of Mar 4, 10:13 am. “Mr. President, if you are willing to sign an Executive Order, why not just put language in the Bill where it will be sure? If not, you won’t have my vote.”

Remember, that if this health care bill had been defeated, it could have been taken up again.  This time in smaller doses, carefully and with regard to the will of the people. There was a lot of agreement with this bill, but to accept the unacceptable was inexcusable.

“Leaving people without access to affordable healthcare or any healthcare for that matter is a violation of a pro-life stand.”
As BREIDENC said, one thing is the issue, another thing is the way to make it happen.  Those who controlled the debate and the media made ObamaCare look like the only way to make health care reform happen.  As I think is clear, it’s not.  Much simpler legislation could have done a lot of good to create a little more competition with companies (and thus costs would eventually go down - AND more coverage for more people if the companies want to make the same amount of money).
Also, putting such a huge piece of extra infrastructure in goverment hands just isn’t the right solution.  Government isn’t the most efficient “business”, since the market element of competition isn’t as hot there - whatever happens, you basically have a job.
That’s why Canada’s health care system is the way it is - with pregnant mothers coming stateside to give birth, becuase of waiting lists (and babies don’t exactly wait).

In response to Mary Williams here, I think the bishops were actually quite on the money.  First, they oppposed ObamaCare primarily becuase of the abortion deal, but not exclusively - Stupak was more of abortion opposition only.  Conscience protection, better immigrant care, eventual cutting of senior care (due to cutting senior money to doctors…) in the moral side were in the argument.
Also, the fiscal respects alone don’t make this bill the best possibility for good and also affordable reform (i.e., for taxpayers footing the expenses).  Fiscal is not a-moral.

Repeat three times: there’s no such a thing as a pro-life Democrat.

Also, I think there was a tactical victory on the part of Obama.  The ardent pro-life caucus leader left what he put his name on the line for with the amendment.  Obama is much like his Spanish counterpart Zapatero - even though ideologically wrong, he is very clever.

As regards Stupak’s decision, I think Obama and Pelosi wouldn’t have tried to get his vote if they had enough votes already.  Stupak had a handful more tied to his, effectively, more likely than not, and the bill passed by only a few votes to spare.
Also, if Obama really wanted not to include abortion funding in full, he would have backed Stupak’s amendment-but he didn’t.  That’s where Stupak should have pushed.  “Mr. President, if you are willing to sign an Executive Order, why not just put the language in the bill where it will be sure?  If not, you won’t have my vote.”

Painting “some” pro-life folks as uncaring about the health of others is quite rash. Mr. Westmeier might have some anecdotal evidence of such, but I really doubt it is fair to cast the lot of us in the same pile. My problem with the health care bill is that the government has failed time and time again to be able to run any program efficiently. And history shows that once the wolf gets a toe in the door, he will open the door wider. So, while this bill does not have a single payer provision, you must know that this is the ultimate goal. You can fine the news conference quotes in videos online. Obama and others in Congress want to put insurance comapnies out of business. Perhaps you favor that. I do not.

“Leaving people without access to affordable healthcare or any healthcare for that matter is a violation of a pro-life stand.”
Since when did it become the Federal Government’s responsibility to provide affordable health care, or any health care for that matter?  Is there something wrong with assisting your own neighbors with your own money? Remember, Jesus calls us into relationship with Him and through Him, the least fortunate; not to do the easy thing, and “have someone else do it”.
The real, and harder, answer is to choose to be faithful Christians to the Gospel and be the witness of Christ to everyone, including those that make us uncomfortable, who are in dire need. If we fail to cultivate relationships, and demand the government to fulfill what our duty as Christians is, minister to Christ found in the poor, then we fail to find Christ in the “Untouchables” of our society. Then, we have failed Christ at His Word.
Nor do we help these people grow in faith and maturity. If we just give people handouts, they remain in the same conditions of dependency, irresponsibility, and immaturity. But if we build relationships with them, giving them examples of maturity, responsibility, and self-sufficiency, they learn to live out this behavior, and may lead them to do this for those even less fortunate than them.

Leaving people without access to affordable healthcare or any healthcare for that matter is a violation of a pro-life stand.

We are obligated to help the poor. HOW we help the poor is a matter of prudence, not doctrine. Just like I cannont feed a poor child by chopping up my neighbor’s child and feeding him to him, so we cannot sign on to a health care plan that has with it expansions of abortion.

And the whole “You’re not really pro-life is a cheap ad hominem. There is right and there is wrong. Dangling healthcare in front of people with it tethered to abortion is wrong. It’s like the devil offering you a dollar of Good with the caveat that you take a dime of evil.

The executive order is just that.  It is not law and can be repealed with a Presidential signature only.
I think Stupak sold out.  Stem cell research should be banned when in fact regressing mature cells work better and is more consistent.

I’m curious as to where John Westmeier stands on the Franco-Prussian war.

I know it’s wrong to kill people, but can Frenchmen really be considered people?  And those poor, poor Prussians, now without a country and all…

:(

The thing that puzzles me about the anti-abortion group, as opposed to the pro-life movement, is that after 40 years of attempting to influence American politics they still don’t know how it works. They do not understande either grassroots political movements OR congressional processes. The bishops, of course, must take the morally absolute stand, although they sometimes also participate in this wrongheadead attitude (there is no point in opposing a bill that has died in committee and will not be reintroduced) but bearing in mind THAT we oppose abortion we need to be intelligent about HOW we oppose abortion. Opposing a general health care bill simply on anti-abortion grounds, when so many of its other provisions are in accord with pro-life stances, is simply a way to make it more difficult to elect pro-life candidates with a chance to make a real, as opposed to iddeologial, difference on abortion. Let’s watch Mr. Stupak & Mr. Casey carefully and see if they do, in fact, spearhead real progress on this issue. Of course, the kicker is, if none of the women in America accepted abortion as the solution to their problems, it wouldn’t matter if it were legeal or not - but evangelize women? OMG!

Again, I believe the response b BillyHW is a reflection of my objections above.  I, too, believe it is “wrong to kill people”.  I wonder where this gentleman stands on the morally indefensible war on Iraq where many qpersons on both sides (USA and Iraq) innocent as well as warriors have been killed based on poor “intelligence” and in the name of “freedom”.  Of course, those to do in reality not think it is wrong to kill people (except in the abstract) call the death of innocent persons “collateral damage”.  I guess that exempts them from the principle.

I disagree with John Westmeier.

I think it’s wrong to kill people.  I also think it’s wrong to steal other people’s money.  I think it’s especially wrong to steal other people’s money to kill people.

Leaving people without access to affordable healthcare or any healthcare for that matter is a violation of a pro-life stand.  I agree with Rep. Stupak’s assessment, but from a different direction.  I do not believe that all persons who refer to themselves as pro-life are in reality such.  Many of them are merely pro-birth.  These same claimants seem to have a callous disregard for children after they are born.  Then it becomes someone else’s problem.  By definition, life extends from birth to natural death.  There is little about natural death when one does not have the necessary resources to maintain life until a natural end.  I do not believe that Rep. Stupak is addled in his thinking; I believe many “pro-lifers” are calloused in their application of the principle.

Bart Stupak’s intelligence is not on trial. Rather it is his knowledge and decision-making skills. Does it matter whether, as a “Pro-Life” Democrat, there would have been enough votes to pass this legislation or not? No. If he was truly Pro-Life, as he articulated, he would have understood the moral gravity of rescuing children from certain death, rather than assisting an unknown and undefined number of people who simply don’t have enough money to get health care services (with ILLEGAL legislation, mind you). Are both situations pitiable? Absolutely! But the difference is the severity of the consequences. Those who are without insurance are not being DIRECTLY murdered by someone, therefore the weight at stake falls squarely to those of the womb, who are being DIRECTLY murdered.  Granted, it can be considered a difficult moral dilemma.  But, if you are witnessing someone knife another person versus the gradual starvation of another (which you only gradually gain knowledge thereof), the action you take first is to save the person whose life is in IMMEDIATE danger. This does not invalidate the need to assist the poor, but rather the need to prioritize.
Furthermore, it is perhaps pitiable of the Honorable Stupak who may be unaware of basic Constitutional law. As already mentioned as an aside that this legislation is illegal because it is ultimately unconstitutional, it was also foolhardy to go with the assurance of a Presidential Executive Order. An Executive Order cannot amend legislation; it can only clarify the legislation, or add a separate action in lieu of non-existent legislation. Remember, Congress writes laws, the President can only enforce laws, or create temporary orders to guarantee national security or welfare, as outlined by the Constitution.
So will Obama be able to create an effective Executive Order for abortions? Only within the purview of the legislation. If the legislation authorizes abortions or the funding of abortions, no executive order can legally oppose that. It is possible to limit it, if the legislation is unclear or silent on the matter. But that’s leaving chance to the most pro-abortion President on political record for this issue.
The difference between this instance and the raised Stem Cell issue is there was no legislation because it was vetoed. President Bush issued an Executive Order in lieu of legislation, and Congress could have still passed legislation opposing it, if they achieved the needed majorities to overcome a Presidential Veto.  They, however, did not.
Stupak, in the end, is reacting with hostility because people have called him out on his failure to live up to his own standard.  But, neither are the US Bishops free from blame in this culture war.

Sadly, Representative Stupak is lying to himself.  He is trying to assuage his conscience for having committed a grave sin:  supporting abortion.  Saint Thomas More was under even more pressure than Mr. Stupak experienced from Mrs. Pelosi, but he did not cave in to his king;.  instead he was executed.  Saint Thomas More pray for us.

The difference is that you could trust Bush put can’t trust Obama.  BTW, don’t believe that Obama signed that order!  Trust me!

Not planning on getting re-elected.