Stupak was stupid . . .

. . . and everybody knew it.

Rep Bart Stupak (D-MI) is a (supposedly) pro-life Democrat, and it was his resistance which initially got a strong no-federal-funds-for-abortion placed in the ObamaCare bill. Well, through this and that, the language was deleted, and Mr Stupak and a bloc of conservative Democrats who agreed with him were going to vote against the abominable health care bill, and defeat it.

President Obama gave Mr Stupak a pledge: he would sign an executive order banning the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, and Mr Stupak accepted the compromise; his bloc voted for the bill, and it passed.

Representative Stupak was displeased with the reaction of pro-life groups to his compromise:


Stupak says Catholic bishops and pro-life groups hypocrites for condemning health-care vote

Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat whose support for President Obama’s health bill ensured it was passed into law Sunday, on Tuesday accused the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and pro-life groups of “hypocrisy” for condemning the executive order that sealed the deal.

“The [National] Right to Life and the bishops, in 2007 when George Bush signed the executive order on embryonic stem cell research, they all applauded the executive order,” Stupak said in an interview with The Daily Caller.

“The Democratic Congress passed [a bill] saying we’ll do embryonic stem cell research. Bush vetoed it in 2007. That same day he issued an executive order saying we will not do it, and all these groups applauded that he protected life,” Stupak said.

“So now President Obama’s going to sign an executive order protecting life and everyone’s condemning it. The hypocrisy is great,” he said.

Obama will sign the order at the White House on Wednesday, the White House announced Tuesday night. Stupak and 12 other pro-life Democrats who voted for the health bill are invited to the signing ceremony.

Stupak also said he suspected groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the National Right to Life, and others were actually “just using the life issue to try to bring down health-care reform.”

“I question, did they want to protect the sanctity of life, or did they want to defeat health care?” he said.

The Bishops absolutely supported the notion of federal health care coverage, but they absolutely oppose abortion. Why did the Bishops condemn the executive order that “sealed the deal?” Because they knew that an executive order can be cancelled at any time, and they knew President Obama was just the kind of liar politician to do that once he got what he wanted.

Obama Administration Approves First Direct Taxpayer Funding of Abortion Through New High-Risk Insurance Pools

Wednesday, July 14, 2010
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor


President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden react to cheers as they arrive in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 23, 2010, for the signing ceremony for the health care bill. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

(CNSNews.com) – If you want proof that President Obama’s Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio).

Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

“The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable,” Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Just last month at the White House, I asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order, which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Unfortunately, the President provided no information, and the American people are still waiting for answers.”

President Obama pledged that under his health care plan “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

In a May 13 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Boehner asked if her department has provided guidance to the states on how to implement the president’s Executive Order on abortion funding. Boehner also asked Sebelius if the new federal high-risk pools would exclude abortion coverage.

He says his questions remain unanswered.

“Millions of Americans care deeply about this aspect of the new law and its implementation, and no progress report is complete without detailed information about it,” Boehner wrote to Sebelius.

The conservative Family Research Council says the $160 million in taxpayer funds for Pennsylvania is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortions through the new high-risk insurance pools.

The abortion funding for pool participants validates the arguments pro-life groups made throughout the health care debate – that taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm.

“For our efforts to remove the bill’s abortion funding, we were called ‘deceivers’ by President Obama and ‘liars’ by his allies. Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are,’ McClusky said.

Hat tip to Bob Reed, in his comment on this article by Darleen Click.

All of us knew that Rep Stupak was being stupid, and we all knew that he was being lied to, and that he was deliberately swallowing the lie. Fortunately, Mr Stupak is in his last term in the House of Representatives: his stupakidy led to serious challenges on both the right and left in his district, and he decided not to seek re-election. If he had at least been honest, and said that he preferred passing a health care bill which would pay for abortions to not passing one at all, we could have at least some respect for his taking of a difficult decision.

Perhaps what he did and the way he did it somehow eased his conscience; as a Roman Catholic, he (supposedly) supports the pro-life position of the Church. But if his idiotic song-and-dance soothed his conscience a few months ago, I have to wonder how he feels right now.

Sensible people knew that President Obama was lying to him.

27 Comments

  1. This is a man what voted to ensure that a goodly portion of everybody you know will die in a dirty socialist government hospital. That’s not something a person what is pro-life would do I don’t think whether our sad little president man issues an executive order about abortions or not.

    Plus he a lot looks like an old lesbian. I wonder if they have him on the site yet.

  2. And Pelosi won the Planned Parenthood person of the year for this ruse. Another liar. Hope when she gets to the pearly gates all those aborted children are there to greet her and then slam the gate shut.

  3. Yeah, he sure didn’t make any friends on either side. It looked like pure grandstanding to me. He was insisting on adding a Federal law that was already a Federal law, and would be far less enforceable than the existing law. Just got him on TV for a few weeks.

    As for Boehner saying Obama’s sent out a big slug of abortion cash for free, daily abortions for men, women and children… well, he’s a liar: http://vodpod.com/watch/2253435-dems-calling-out-john-boehner-over-his-health-care-reform-lies

  4. There’s video of this out there, but I can’t find it.

    PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness, but I want everyone to know what health insurance reform is all about… you’ve heard that this is all going to mean government-funding of abortion. Not true. This is all — these are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation.

    Obama was speaking to a group of liberal religious people so he chose to use Judeo-Christian terminology to make him sound Christian. Obama bore false witness. He lied. First off, Obama lied by claiming ObamaCare would not fund abortions. Secondly, Obama lied about everyone who said ObamaCare would fund abortions, since ObamaCare clearly does fund abortions.

    Nangleator, who apparently knows nothing about how laws work or what is in ObamaCare, throws out some twaddle:

    [Stupak] was insisting on adding a Federal law that was already a Federal law[.]

    ObamaCare replaced old law with its new law. That’s how things work. A new law that is counter to an old law supersedes the old law. And federally funded abortions is written into ObamaCare.

  5. Obama is an “ends justifies the means” guy. He’ll lie about anything to reach his goals since he knows a public that knows the truth will not support him but rather work very hard to stop him. He’ll use illegal means and support those who use illegal means to accomplish his goals. And when people using illegal means get caught, he’ll either run interference for them or throw them under the bus. That’s just who Obama is. And it’s very plain to see.

  6. Thanks, Yorkie. I guess it’s just audio. But there are a large number of Obama lies in that audio, the lies about abortion funding and the lies about the people who said “it’s in there” are just two of the lies Obama spread in that short audio.

    edit: That audio is at a minimum 47 weeks old, so that means Obama has been lying for at least 47 weeks.

  7. Hyde is still controlling law here, so no federal funds can go directly to abortion whether or not it’s banned by an Obama executive order or not. I’m not convinced this is the whole story.

  8. Why did the Bishops condemn the executive order that “sealed the deal?” Because they knew that an executive order can be cancelled at any time,

    this is so ridiculous – a president can assert all manner of powers to override any law at any time; does the council of bishops therefore oppose all laws on the grounds that none of them are safe from assertion of executive privilege? the Church has made herself into a huge worldwide joke by putting politics before actual principle, and this is another example of the same; no wonder formerly Catholic countries are converting en masse to Protestant denominations that while odious to me at least have the courage of their convictions

  9. cbmc: President Obama hadn’t promised Representative Stupak a change in the law; he promised — and delivered — an executive order. Those can be changed, by any president, for any reason.

  10. cbmc wrote:

    no wonder formerly Catholic countries are converting en masse to Protestant denominations that while odious to me at least have the courage of their convictions

    You were saying?


    Catholicism Growing in the U.S. and Worldwide

    The Vatican says the number of Catholics as a percentage of the worldwide faithful is growing. From 2007 to 2008 Roman Catholics grew from 17.33 percent of the global population to 17.4 percent.

    The statistics are included in a yearbook presented Saturday to Pope Benedict XVI. The yearbook says the number of priests rose from 2000-2008 but that the number of nuns worldwide fell 7.8 percent.

    The number of nuns rose significantly in Asia and Africa over those eight years but not enough to make up for sharp drops in Europe and America.

    According to the National Council of Churches’ (NCC) new 2010 Yearbook of American & Canadian Churches, Catholic Church’s membership in the United States grew at the robust rate of about 1.5 percent in 2008.

    A slight loss in Catholic membership in the U.S. was reported in the 2009 Yearbook, but the NCC said the latest figure shows “robust growth.” The figures come from 2008 statistics. The growth outpaces the estimated U.S. population growth rate in 2008, listed as 0.9 percent, according to the CIA World Factbook.

    There are now an estimated 68.1 million Catholics in the United States. Except for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, whose members are about 2.9 million, the other denominations lost membership. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest denomination after Catholics, now stands at 16.2 million. It also declined in membership in the year prior.

    More at the link.

  11. The Vatican says

    You know how you guys are forever fretting about “media bias”? I think a Vatican reporter on Catholicism is kind of ripe, coming from people who’re so concerned about bias. Your “robust rate” is ignoring the overall historical trend. Here’s a more honest, yet still Catholic source:

    http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/dramatic-growth-evangelicals-latin-america

    Brazil, the largest Catholic country in the world at 149 million, loses half a million Catholics every year. Protestants have grown from nine percent of Brazil’s population in 1991 to 15.1 percent (some say as much as 22 percent), while the proportion of Catholics has dropped from 84 percent to 67 percent. In Mexico, 88 percent of a population of 102 million is now Catholic, a decline of 10 percent compared to the mid-20th century.

    When the two largest Catholic countries in the world are hemorrhaging, something serious is afoot.

    This pattern has been going on for ages.

  12. just reeling really about people constantly whining about bias who then reach for a Vatican spokesman to answer the question “is the Catholic church in decline”? seriously Dana you gotta try harder than that.

  13. cbmc: “…bias who then reach for a Vatican spokesman…”

    Heh, yeah, he’s impartial. When he found out about the Belgian investigation into child abuse, he was furious… furious, I tell you –

    – that the police were investigating it.

  14. so, i am curious what the liberals around here think of BO lying about this.

    lets not get sidetracked till they proclaim their allegiance to liars. coz they have to, or else repudiate it.

    well?

  15. As to Obama lying, this isn’t the first case. No, I’m not happy. But the alternative (any Republican being in the office,) is much, much worse.

    You’ve had your fun. There’s shit everywhere, and it’s time for the cleanup. Stop telling us mops are too expensive.

  16. aotc: you have to have administrator access to post pictures, and the link itself that you sent didn’t have any text displayed under which to embed the link. I fixed it for you, ’cause I’m a nice guy.

  17. realistically the elephant shouldn’t be depicted as trying to clear the hurdle – it’s always clear that the purportedly high moral standards are for other people, not the people setting them

  18. Lol. I don’t know where the catholic church is making up those numbers from, but everywhere that you go you see abandoned catholic churches. Hell, they even tax them here in PA.

    The serious drop in membership in the catholic church, and churches in general, is bankrupting many of them. It brings great enjoyment to see institutions that want to do nothing but control thought to lose all of their money and power. The next thing that they’ll lose is relevancy…oh wait, that already happened throughout most of Europe and liberal parts of the US.

  19. cbmc:

    realistically the elephant shouldn’t be depicted as trying to clear the hurdle – it’s always clear that the purportedly high moral standards are for other people, not the people setting them

    lol, an irony wrapped in an paradox…

Comments are closed.