News

Tuesday March 9, 2010


Optimistic Stupak Thinks Dems Will Actually Include Abortion Ban in Health Bill

By Kathleen Gilbert

WASHINGTON, DC, March 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) now says he is “more optimistic” that negotiations with top Democrats in the House could lead to adequate language banning abortion funding in health care reform, the Associated Press reported Monday.

“I’m more optimistic than I was a week ago,” Stupak told the AP in an interview in Michigan.

“The president says he doesn’t want to expand or restrict current law (on abortion). Neither do I,” he 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.”

However, Stupak make it clear in an interview today with the Weekly Standard, that there is no deal with the Democrat leadership. The Standard reported, “Stupak affirmed that he will not settle for an agreement to pass the bill now and fix the bill’s problems on abortion later: ‘If they say ‘we’ll give you a letter saying we’ll take care of this later,’ that’s not acceptable because later never comes.'”

Stupak, the author of the House health bill’s abortion funding ban, maintains that leaders will not have enough votes to pass the Senate bill if it is not fixed to ban government funding of abortion with language reflecting the famous Hyde amendment, which includes an exception for rape and incest.

Although Stupak claims that at least a dozen House Democrats will also vote “no” on a bill without the Hyde-like language, it is unclear how such language could be brought to bear on the measure. In order to avoid sending another version of the bill back to the Senate, where Democrats no longer maintain a supermajority, House leaders have been pursuing avenues to pass the Senate bill in the House unamended.

Therefore, it would appear that abortion language would need to pass in a separate, later bill – but only after the Senate version, which does not include the ban, has been pushed through.

Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee already warned, however, against trusting Democrat leaders to follow through with such a promise: he pointed out that Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) suggested that the House pass the Senate bill after receiving a “blood oath” from Democrat senators that they would later pass a bill to “fix” the House’s concerns.

“Lawmakers who are considering voting for the Senate bill based on a ‘blood oath’ or any other promise should first call to mind the once-popular comic strip ‘Peanuts,'” said Johnson, “in which Lucy frequently teed up a football and enticed Charlie Brown to take a run at it, solemnly promising not to snatch the ball away at the last instant. Charlie Brown inevitably ended up flat on his back wondering how he could have been once again so foolish.

“House members who vote for the Senate bill will be accountable to their constituents for what the Senate bill contains, including its pro-abortion mandates and subsidies, without regard to blood oaths, secret handshakes, solemn assurances that Congress will revisit the issue in future legislation, or any other artifice or gimmick,” he said.

Last week, Stupak challenged President Obama to heed polls showing strong American support for the abortion funding ban, and place the Stupak amendment in the Senate bill. “Mr. president, put it in there,” the Michigan Democrat urged in an appearance on FOX Business.

“If we’re trying to reflect the will of the American people,” he urged, “this certainly is one amendment where you can show your flexibility and actually do what the American people want: no public funding for abortion.”

0 Comments

    Loading...