 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| How the Stupak-Pitts Amendment May Change Our Politics |
| by Deal W. Hudson |
| 11/12/09 |
|
Last Friday night, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to allow a vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, she may have unwittingly altered the direction of the Obama presidency and the Democratic Party. For the first time in a long time, the pro-life issue is setting the agenda for the national debate on a major piece of legislation. Even more startling is the fact that the impetus for this inversion results from the courageous efforts of a pro-life leader in the Democratic Party, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI). Stupak was aptly described by William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal as "The Man Who Made Pelosi Cry Uncle." He also made the media sit up and pay attention. As McGurn, a former White House speechwriter, commented: Up until almost literally the 11th hour, Mr. Stupak's push for a vote was treated as a sideshow. Nor was President Barack Obama ever called to answer for his flatly contradictory public statements on the place of abortion (the preferred term is "reproductive health care") in any health-care reform. Democratic Party leaders, aligned with pro-abortion lobbying groups, initially saw Pelosi's move as an effort to gain passage of the bill out of the House to the Senate and ultimately to conference, where the language barring abortion could be stripped out. But if the 64 anti-abortion funding House Democrats stand their ground, that won't be possible. That fact has not gone unnoticed. President Obama himself told ABC News that the legislation was intended as a health-care bill, "not an abortion bill." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promised the Senate version of the bill will not contain abortion funding. (It's no coincidence that Reid is facing a tough reelection in his home state.) Some pro-life leaders, like the pro-abortion Democrats, viewed Pelosi's decision with initial cynicism; but under persistent, behind-the-scenes urging from Doug Johnson, the legislative director of National Right to Life, they joined together to urge pro-life members of Congress to support the bill rather than merely vote "present." As John McCormack at the Weekly Standard has correctly argued: Bringing down Stupak would have seriously hurt the effort to defeat Obamacare. The minority Republicans need public opinion and moderate Democrats on their side to defeat the health-care bill. Betraying pro-life Democrats and playing the part of cynical politicians for the media would have damaged that effort. Republicans wisely chose to stand by the 64 Democrats who risked the wrath of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America by supporting the amendment. Pro-abortion groups have already begun their counterattack, collecting signatures of more than 40 members of Congress who would not vote for the bill if it were returned to the House with the amendment intact. The same story from CBS News reports that liberal bloggers have been quick to point out that 62 of the 64 Democrats were men, as if that were sufficient to explain their vote.
It's because of this successful outreach to House Democrats that I am delighted to admit that I was wrong in predicting last August that Catholics would not succeed in getting abortion out of the health-care bill. It's far from a done deal, as I argued last Saturday night, but the amendment's passage puts the pro-life coalition in a strong position to influence the fate of this bill. Obama's health-care legislation has been hailed as the flagship effort of his administration. One of his closest advisors, Tina Tchen, director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, promised Planned Parenthood in late July that abortion funding would be in the health-care plan. It's safe to say that the pro-abortion groups who have supported Obama from the very beginning expected the White House and congressional Democrats to fight any effort to remove abortion funding. Thus, the collective hysteria of pro-abortion advocates is not surprising. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) has called for an IRS investigation of the USCCB -- "Who elected them to Congress?" she huffs. Others hurl at the USCCB the same "theocracy" invectives they once threw at George W. Bush. Woolsey and her fellow travelers are only exposing their fear and frustration in the face of a pro-life majority in both houses of Congress. As for the person who started this ball rolling, Pelosi finds herself in a box of her own making. She can't weaken the amendment language without losing a good number of Democratic House votes, as well as that of the lone Republican, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA). And the U.S. bishops would consider it a betrayal of the highest order if the health-care bill, containing their much-desired public option, is defeated by a Catholic speaker trying to make good on her promises to the abortion lobby. Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster). Readers have left 30 comments. If it's suggested that the Venezuelan socialist/marxist prolife healthcare model is the one for us to follow---count me out! Common good, solidiarity, human dignity, and subsidiarity complete four the parts to the Catholic teaching of Social Justice. Anything less is not Catholic teaching. Written by Carl Now let's get a euthanasia funding ban added to the bill. Written by Micha Elyi Quote(3) Let's hope this is only the first of many possible actions by p November 12th, 2009 | 6:24am It will be interesting to see what happens next. Either there will be massive fall out by partisans on both sides of the issue, causing those who cooperated across partisan lines to face all kinds of internal-party consequences, or we might see the future of more such initiatives and we will get something more, and better, in the future. Obviously I hope for the second, but I fear the first. Something needs to be done so that the first does not happen. Written by Henry Karlson Thank you for this article, very informative. Written by Ann As you say, it's far from a done deal, but it's a good first step. It remains to be seen whether the amendment will survive, or how much it really prevents abortion funding in the first place. The American Life League says it still allows funding in case of "life of the mother," which we know is easily stretched, and they point to several other abortion-related problems in the bill which they say Stupak does not prevent. But at least the argument has shifted a little, and there are enough Democrats on board that it'll be harder to call it a partisan attack. My prediction when all this started was that Democrats as a whole will let health care die rather than have abortion funding (really) removed from it. That still looks likely to me, and the best case scenario.  Written by Aaron For what it's worth, here are the claims from the American Life League: http://all.org/article.php?id=12330 I don't know if they're correct, but they say Stupak expanded funding for Planned Parenthood, and that the bill still contains funding for euthanasia and the morning-after pill, and no conscience protections. It also allows public funding of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, the last of which will surely be stretched by bureaucrats and judges to cover almost any case. Can a Catholic support this bill? Written by Aaron Pray that this is the beginning of a pro-life spine within the Democratic Party. If there are Dem legislators willing to speak out, and Republican legislators ready to actually take action instead of just giving lip service to pro-lifers, we might actually get somewhere in this fight. Stupak deserves a whole lot of credit. Written by Andy Abortion has once again been brought to the forefront. Democrats can no longer hem and haw and use verbal gymnastics to dance around the issue. President Obama says its "Not an Abortion Bill"....but the fact is, that Health Care is a part of human life, life which begins at Conception. Pro-Abortion politicians will kill this bill, if it is to die. They can't blame Republicans for this one. Written by D.B. I agree w/Carl. This bill does not encompass ALL of the tenants of Catholic Social Teaching. Even w/abortion out of this bill (and that is a wonderful thing, no doubt), this bill is bad for our country on so many other levels. We may have one this battle, but we cannot afford to lose the bigger war that we're fighting. Written by JenniferL33 Because of what has gone on in the past, and because so much money is always involved, I personally do not think that die hard pro-lifers will be happy when this is all said and done. I am open to being pleasantly surprised, but my feeling is that any number of things can change there in Washington, most of which we never really see how or why they do so. This is not to say that I dont have hope, nor that Iam not happy about Stupak. I a most certainly am. I do hope and pray that this bill comes to the president's desk with health care for everyone and no federal dollars funding abortion, but my guess is it will be a mishmash as most things in Washington usually are. Still, I am glad to see Deal admit that there is some light among some Democrats, and that he can be wrong. Bravo on that count. We pray and watch as they fuss and fuddle there in D.C. Written by Rich I agree w/Carl. This bill does not encompass ALL of the tenants of Catholic Social Teaching. Even w/abortion out of this bill (and that is a wonderful thing, no doubt), this bill is bad for our country on so many other levels. We may have won this battle, but we cannot afford to lose the bigger war that we're fighting. — JenniferL33 Written by JenniferL33 This debate comes down to one main issue: We either trust the government to decide our healthcare decisions for us or we trust ourselves and work to maintain choice in healthcare and work to help the uninsured obtain coverage in other ways. I vote the latter. Sadly, the bishops have thrown their hats in with the former. They have sold out the average American who is being forced into a future of socialized medicine. How can anyone look at those in Washington (pay close attention to the President's advisors and their radical beliefs) and think that anything good can come out of giving control to Washington. Remember, once you give away your rights to Washington, you will never get them back. The bishops, on the other hand, would much prefer to trust Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Sebelius, etc., more than us. The bishops, not unlike many in Washington, find it easier to advocate for spending other people's money. That is the opposite of charity. Written by Annely I don't mean to be a downer. It's great to see abortion being put in the forefront, even if only symbolically. It's even better to see a group of pro-life Democrats bucking their own party this way. I had no idea there were as many as 40 of them. But there are still many aspects of this bill that a Catholic or pro-lifer can't support (even if the Stupak Amendment stays and is as solid as some of its supporters claim), and it will be embarrassing if the USCCB uses this opportunity to jump on board as they've wanted to do all along. If a bill that includes a lot of sideways abortion funding (like included funding for Planned Parenthood) and provisions for euthanasia and other projects of the culture of death gets labeled "pro-life" and passed with the support of the USCCB and pro-life organizations, it seems to me that redefines the meaning of "pro-life" in a bad way. I'll just keep praying for the whole mess to be defeated. Written by Aaron Subsidiarity is a concept which is has become so unfamiliar to us in our modern "advanced" times that it comes up with a red underline in our word processing programs. The principle of subsidiarity says political power should be exercised by the smallest or least central unit of government. According to the Catholic American Center on Law and Religion, subsidiarity "has been an integral part of Catholic social teaching for over a century, [and] states that only things that NEED to be done at the national or 'federal' level SHOULD be done by a 'federal' government; and allows for things that CAN be done at the local or smaller level TO be done at the more local and smaller units of society. Where individuals, intermediary groups, or small private groups of persons CAN address the particular exigencies and realities of a given situation, it is BEST to defer to such smaller groups because human beings need some flexibility and autonomy in order to effectively address their particular circumstances." This concept seems to be removed from discussion in order to keep the straw man as the alternative. So if someone does not support the federal bill, then they do not care if old people get medicine or working families can afford surgery. Where are the bishops on this principle? Written by Bruce Roeder We need to have a further discussion on the abortion issue in this Nation. For instance, why didn't the U.S. Army legal arm bring 14 counts of death against the Fort Hood Muslim terrorist (the Major) instead of 13? One of the women victims was pregnant; was with child. There are scientific proofs (the new digital ultrasound, for one) that prove a fetus is not just a "blob of tissue," but a human being and thus entitled under God and Country to the right to develop unto birth--their right to life. National Right to Life should use this opportunity to speak up in defense of this omission. Written by LEM What About Subsidiarity? Actually this bill is quite good on subsidiarity (except to those who confuse subsidiarity with laissez faire). Most people will still get their insurance through employer provided plans using private sector (or non-profit) health care providers. Tens of millions of currently uninsured will get health care from private sector providers through private sector insurance sold on the exchange with some of them receiving partial public financing for their private premiums. There also may be an option to buy insurance from a government sponsored enterprise (still with the health care private or non-profit). All in all, it is an extremely de-centralized system. As for Planned Parenthood funding, there is nothing in the bill that gives them a dime. Sure, it will be up to individuals if they want to use their insurance to pay for pap smears or mamograms at PP clinics (soemthing even the Archdiocese of Denver's employee health plans allows). Written by Kurt The problem with the bill is that it is written by democrats who over the years have proven, beyond any doubt, their undying love for abortions and abortionists. Perhaps Mr. Stupak is a good man, one who has studied the science which proves conclusively that a fetus is a seperate, living human being that should be protected, but he sits in a caucus with individuals who have year in and year out sought to expand and enshrine abortion in the US and the rest of the world. How many more justices will Obama have to appoint to make sure the clause prohibitting abortion is ruled unconstitutional? Any support of the democrats is support for the murder of innocents. Written by Richard To begin with, given that the federal Constitution is silent about abortion, the 10th A. automatically reserves government power to regulate abortion to the states, not the federal government. So the USSC was wrong to ignore state sovereignty in Roe v. Wade. Next, the problem with the USSC "finding" abortion rights in the "wild card" 9th Amendment, applying them to the states via the 14th Amendment is the following. John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the 14th A. applied only constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities to the states. See for yourself. "Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution." --John Bingham, Congressional Globe (1871) http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n Based on Bingham's words, the only way that the USSC could have applied abortion rights to the states through the 14th A., IMO, is if the states had amended the Constitution prior to Roe v. Wade to expressly protect abortion rights. Also, in stark contrast to the USSC finding abortion rights in the 9th A., note that when Bingham officially clarified the scope and purpose of the 14th A. for the HoR, he read only the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing rights which the 14th applied to the states, ignoring the 9th Amendment altogether. See the first eight amendments in Bingham's discussion of the 14th A. at the following link, a page from the congressional record. http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n So the USSC's so-called "right" to an abortion is an example of a constitutionally nonexistent right, scandalously established by judicial fiat as opposed to by state legislative powers to amend the Constitution. Finally, consider that while the USSC usurped 10th A. protected state power to regulate abortion to legalize abortion, the Court chose not to interfere in the Terri Schiavo case, citing the Founder's division of federal and state government powers. So corrupt justices are unwittingly practicing a double-standard with respect to arbitrarily respecting state sovereignty, IMO, as evidenced by so-called abortion rights and Terri. Written by B. Johnson Who elected Planned Parenthood and NARAL to Congress? Strange that those organizations can try to force through their own anti life agenda but if pro lifers stand up to them, they whine...I wonder if their mothers ever considered aborting them???!!!! Written by Sam Subsidiarity is the principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, least centralized, most locally attuned actors. This bill shapes our health care industry even more accordingly to the will of a federal actor. That's simply not subsidiarity, in any way, shape or form. Written by Ken Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, D-Cal. is upset by the USCCB involvement in the health insurance debate. I hear she is looking into using this as a means to get rid of the church's tax exempt status. Written by Mark The principle of subsidiarity says political power should be exercised by the smallest or least central unit of government. — Bruce RoederTwo corrections. First, nowhere are the words "political" or "of government" found in the proper definition. Often, the proper forum is through neighbors, families, the market, volunteer agencies, etc. Subsidiarity isn't just about government. For example, the Church will prefer a neighborhood hardware store over a Wal-Mart, even if Wal-Mart has better prices. Second, you missed the word "effective" in your definition. Sometimes, the smallest effective unit is nationwide. The most obvious example is the U.S. Army, which is much more effective as is than it would be as 50 separate armies. The question that should be asked is whether there are effective ways of reforming health care at lower than the federal level. I'm not saying I support the health care bill, but it's important not to misunderstand subsidiarity as simply being nothing more than smaller/more local government. Written by Eric Pavlat This well written post makes me consider my own lack of tolerance, political speaking. Like others, I was brought up with liberal political bias in the very air I breathed. Later becoming a conservative, prior to becoming a Catholic. As such, I had long considered pro life Democrats to be a sort of a quaint myth. Or, to be such a small number of people, as to be politically irrelevant Also having never actually meet one face to face. I now face my error. Still a bit suspicious, but with a partially open mind. I remain opposed to the health care bill for many reasons dealing with economics and liberty. Written by Doug Moore Thanks for that excellent clarification of subsidiarity, Eric. I believe the triumph of pro-life Democrats is a political manifestation of a broader shift taking place in the American electorate. I think we've seen it coming for years - we saw it on the Republican side as Huckabee won considerable support during the GOP primaries last year, and I think we are seeing it now on the Democratic side. What we are seeing is the emergence of an independent Christian political coalition that is no longer tied down to partisan politics. It is broad enough to eschew Republican economic orthodoxy and Democratic social liberalism. The convergence of pro-welfare/regulation social conservatives, with the support of the Catholic Church and the USCCB in particular, the pro-life Democrats and 'compassionate' conservative Republicans, the shift in politics among young Protestant Evangelicals, are all forces that put pressure upon the two-party system like raging waters against an old, poorly-maintained dam. Democrats and Republicans have only themselves to blame; Democrats, for thinking they could promote conservative Dems in order to retain a congressional majority without damaging their social liberalism, and Republicans, for counting on Christians remaining meek and silent on economic issues. A new "Christian coalition" is forming, or has already formed, and now has representatives in Congress. I welcome it. Written by Joe H Thanks Eric, Ken, and Joe H. Written by Bruce Roeder When someone can show me a democrat senator who votes against a supreme court nominee because of their pro-abortion stance, I'll believe in pro-life democrats. Supposedly pro-life senators like Reid, Casey, and Nelson all gave their support to virulent pro-abortionist Sotomayor. It's true some supposedly pro-life republicans also voted for her, but I think those of us who wish to save innocent life have a better chance of success if we wholeheartedly support consistent pro-life republicans. Written by Richard The Stupak amendment in the bill is like lipstick on a pig. It does not nearly correct all of the prolife deficiencies of the bill, and it gives cover to politicians who want to vote in socialised medicine, a great evil. Socialised medicine is like heroin addiction - the people will never go back. Yet it will entrench an antilife mentality into the populace, because the only way to pay for it will be through terminating lives prematurely (sometimes politely termed "rationing"). That is unfortunately the end result the USCCB is campaigning for. Their prolife educational materials will have to be retooled for the "brave new world" they are ushering in. If only they would campaign for faith-based health care, where the Church could administer a plan to its own members, consistent with its own conscience. If people understood the government tyranny over all aspects of their lives that this bill makes possible, they would appeal to the bishops to "just say no" to the bill. Written by Susan The Stupak amendment was no victory. Even if it were to remain with the final bill, as Susan said, the so-called health care bill has fatal flaws. It's not merely that it's a cover for widespread health care rationing with an impending holocaust of euthanasia, that the whole abortion thing will be added back on way or another, that the cost will destroy us economically, or that our rights to health care will be utterly demolished. The real problem is that this whole thing is the cornerstone for a totalitarian dictatorship, the complete destruction of our freedoms, and the end of our constitutional republic. The bishops' failure to see this is undermining their credibility. The government that decides every detail of its citizens' health care will dictate the values, the rights, whether we live or die or can get an aspirin, if even a limited version of this bill gets passed. Who could even think of criticizing a government that has that much power over your life? Passing the amendment was a mere ploy. Nancy the so-called "devout" Catholic, has already promised to add back the abortion, regardless. Written by Mary Republicans will not vote for any national health bill, no matter what. That's clear. If it passes, it will be on the backs of Democratic legislators, pro life and pro choice. Whether national health care passes or not, the Democrats will be seen as a big tent party, willing to compromise, for the good of all, neither all for nor all against abortion. They will never get the support of most hardline pro lifers. They'll get a lot from those who believe in further limiting and decreasing abortion rather than a total ban. The Republican party will be only for hard line pro lifers, with criminalization of abortion under any circumstance, a strict litmus test of acceptability. Very few pro choicers will ever cross over to the Republican side. This is the way the Republicans want it. So be it. Written by Dave |
|
 |
