Posted on 02/23/2010 8:51:57 AM PST by AlanD
Rep. Bart Stupak, the pro-life Democrat from Michigan, has weighed in on the president's new proposal for health care reform. Stupak played a pivotal role last year in the passage of the House health care reform bill when he authored an amendment to add tight restrictions on abortion funding, a move that enraged pro-choice advocates in the Democratic base but also garnered the support of 40 fellow conservative House Democrats.
In a statement released by his office, Stupak praised some elements of the president's proposal, but calls the abortion funding language in the plan "a significant departure from current law and unacceptable." The congressman's objection to the provisions presents a major hurdle for negotiators, who have worked for months behind closed doors to find a compromise that both Stupak's coalition and the progressive members of the Democratic caucus can support.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicsdaily.com ...
paging Catholic Bishops....time to choose a side....what’s it gonna be? Life or Socialism??
Language in Obama’s Health Plan ‘Unacceptable’as is Obama.
Dear Nancy: Could you mail me your latest whip count. I’m starting to wonder if you really have the votes for ObaminationCare.
This very well may be Custer’s last stand. There would be nothing funnier than if the Democrats ignore the will of the electorate ... and still lose. Belligerent and incompetent are not a good mix. This may well create a political perfect storm for conservatives, wherein liberals reveal themselves as both totalitarian, and incapable.
SnakeDoc
A part of the bill funds “Community Health centers” AKA “Planned Parenthood Clinics”.
Encouraging, but it depends if Stupak carries some votes with him.
Remember, several of the RAT retirees in the House who voted NO the last time may have a new incentive to vote YES. Someone needs to analyze. I’m swamped.
Stupak plus Wexler (resigned) and Murtha (assumed room temperature), means that Pelosi is short of her 217, probably by at least a vote and realistically, probably many more.
Exactly there are Marxists and then there are Incompetent Marxists.
The RATS are beginning to make Hugo Chavez (who is now sitting in the dark) look like a brilliant tactition.
And pro-life pregnancy centers won't see a dime.
Obama told Reid and Pelosi to “Win Ugly” if they must. But it looks like Obama is now going to “Lose Ugly” instead. At least I hope so.
Every day of delay greatly helps the opponents of Obamacare, and Obamaa knows it.
Also if a woman gets raped, she should also be required to bear the baby? Why not, it is no skin off your nose.
An amendment that actually funded abortions.
Respectfully, I wish you wouldn’t talk like that. Not only do I know more than one lovely and wonderful woman who has gotten “knocked up” outside of marriage, but I think talk of whores and sinners can only hurt the pro-life cause. We should be the ones with love and acceptance for mothers and babies, in contrast to the ones who want to damage them both with abortions. Sorry, I know that was kind of holier-than-thou, but I really believe this.
I am a Methodist but the Catholic Church has been a stalwart on abortion. Only so much the church can do when a certain segment of their laity is bent of ascribing some sort of Jeffersonian Democratic right for a woman to kill their baby. Pro-Lifers know the scam, abortion is about hedonism and the right for some women who got knocked up to get rid of a “problem”...period. Yet these same people who claim the right to murder think it is perfectly ok for governments to tax, regulate and dominate the other 99% of your life. Our society is doomed if we don't rid it of this scourge.
Yup. You can’t have socialism without abortion. You can’t have socialism without immorality that slams Christian morals around and tries to wipe them out. State IS god. State controls everything, determines what you need, where you live, approves who you marry, when you have kids, etc.
The real reason they haven’t come out hard against it is because their (the bishops’) lives have not been personally hit hard by this. Bishops live very sheltered lives, they have no children or wives of their own, they are well taken care of by staff and the church. All their needs are met, they are almost always around people who like them and give them compliments and say nice things to them. They are disconnected by this and they won’t speak out because that will start the boat rocking, and if the boat tips their lives may get a whole lot more uncomfortable.
Did the child do anything wrong?? Does is die saying “Well, at least I was a rape baby, so I guess its ok?”.
.
This is a favorite arguement, but is a VERY, VERY small sample of the actual abortions (.35% for Rape AND incest). ONE THIRD OF ONE PERCENT!!
.
Finally, I wouldnt want to be a young man when they change the law to say that abortion is illegal except in case of rape or incest, because the amount of “rapes” are going to skyrocket!
.
If its a baby, then its wrong to abort for any reason except possibily LIFE of the mother. If its a mass of tissue, then anytime would be fine. Why put limits on it?
Yes. Just a few months of her life would give an innocent infant an entire lifetime. The baby did nothing to deserve this type of death penalty. Why dismember a human infant while it's still alive - without as much as an aspirin to dull the pain - so this woman can avoid the "inconvenience."
If the infant is lucky, it's head will get torn off first. If it's not so lucky, it's intestines can be ripped out first, or maybe an arm or leg can be torn off instead. Image what these infants go through. Screw the "mother." She's got the easy part!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.