harmonicminer

Neither side is happy with Stupak

We all know how Rep. Bart Stupak caved the day of the passage of the government takeover of health care. But we don’t know why.

Well, we do know why. We’ve known all along that Stupak supported ObamaCare. After getting his amendment passed to the original public option health care bill that passed the House in November, he voted for the final bill. But it is baffling to pro-lifers why he, who had the power to singlehandedly make or break health care reform, would give up all that power in the last minute for a worthless scrap of paper.

An executive order cannot change current law. They can easily be overruled by the courts, which have done so in the past. Legislation from Congress supersedes them. And an executive order can be rescinded at any time. President Obama could sign the order then revoke it 60 seconds later. If the new health care system withstands legal challenges and a possible repeal, this executive order will just become another Mexico City Policy, rescinded and reinstated whenever a new president takes office.

Stupak’s move pleases neither side of the abortion debate. The pro-life side thinks the order doesn’t go nearly far enough, and the pro-abortion side thinks it goes too far. The SBA List rescinded the Defender of Life award we were supposed to give Stupak at our gala two days ago. Other pro-life groups across the country have condemned him and are now working to defeat him instead of supporting him. Pro-abortion groups are doing the same. NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund are now backing Stupak’s primary challenger.

In an editorial to be published Saturday in the Washington Post, Stupak says, “The pro-life groups rallied behind me, many without my knowledge or consent, not necessarily because they shared my goals of ensuring protections for life and passing health-care reform but because they viewed me as their best chance to kill health-care legislation.”

Oh, yeah? Then why did pro-lifers in Congress vote in favor of the Stupak Amendment in November, thus opening the door for your group to vote for the bill and therefore pass it? And if you didn’t want pro-life groups rallying behind you, why did you accept their money and support?

Mr. Stupak, we trusted you. We thought we had found a hero, someone who was standing up for Life when it looked hopeless. And then we found out you’re just like any other politician, lying to the people to get your way. You broke our heart. And now pro-lifers are not rallying around you, but around your opponent. We’re going to do everything we can to ensure you get defeated with everyone else in November.

Actually, I think the Left is quite happy with Stupak. They got what they wanted from him, and he provided cover for Democrats from pro-life districts. In the end, he sold out to Obama and the Democrats for less than a mess of pottage.

The definition of a pro-life Democrat is someone who wants to say they are pro-life but vote for pro-abortion candidates and policies.  That’s because they think many other things are more important than ending legal abortion.  But you can’t be seriously pro-life and think that there is all that much that matters more than ending legal abortion.    So another way to describe a “pro-life” Democrat is as someone who is vaguely uncomfortable with legal abortion-on-demand, but doesn’t think it matters enough to do anything really significant about it, and certainly not enough to take any political risks for it, or risk losing on any other issue that matters more.

These days, pro-life Democrats always fold in the end, which is predictable by the fact that they caucus with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

The latest oxymoron:  pro-life Democrat. 

Add it to the list of species that went extinct in the 20th century.