The Man Who Made Pelosi Cry 'Uncle': Bart Stupak wins a ban on federal funds for abortion

Wall Street Journal ^ | NOVEMBER 9, 2009 | WILLIAM MCGURN

[rhema]

Not many folks in Washington have made Nancy Pelosi cry "uncle."

Bart Stupak is one of the few. For months, the Michigan Democrat has been threatening to bring down any health-care bill unless the House was given the opportunity to vote to extend the ban on taxpayer dollars for abortion to the new federal programs being created. On Saturday night, Mrs. Pelosi caved and Mr. Stupak prevailed.

The result is one of the few, real up-or-down votes we ever get on abortion—and the only part of the health-care mess that shows any bipartisan consensus. In the end, 63 Democrats and Mr. Stupak joined all but one Republican on an amendment that does two things: prohibits federal funds for an abortion or for abortion coverage; allows (notwithstanding pro-choice propaganda) private insurers to offer abortion coverage so long as tax dollars are not involved.

"Mr. Stupak and I have not always agreed on things," Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, told me. "But I commend him for his effort here. His willingness to dig in the way he did was admirable."

What makes this interesting is that Mr. Stupak is no Blue Dog. Though some Blue Dogs joined him, the Stupak amendment in fact offers a striking contrast between the success of pro-life Democrats and the persistent failure of Blue Dogs. The pro-lifers came together, held their line, and got their way; the Blue Dogs never seem able to coalesce, and generally have been picked off individually.

Not that the press ever noticed. 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")

[rhema]

As it is, Democrats now have to make some decisions that may anger their Planned Parenthood wing. The fight itself will be interesting, judging from a claim by Diana DeGette (D., Col.) in yesterday's Washington Post that 40 Democrats will vote against a final bill unless the Stupak amendment is stripped out. Of course, if it is stripped out, that will put even more pressure on those 64 Democrats who voted for the amendment.

"We won because [the Democrats] need us," says Mr. Stupak. "If they are going to summarily dismiss us by taking the pen to that language, there will be hell to pay. I don't say it as a threat, but if they double-cross us, there will be 40 people who won't vote with them the next time they need us—and that could be the final version of this bill."

[Carley]

What a crock. Stupak knew that this ban would be removed in committee.

He tried to save his own rear end at the expense of unborn babies.

Craven in the extreme.

[Uncle Ike]

” Bart Stupak wins a ban on federal funds for abortion “

‘Bart Stupak wins a *temporary* ban on federal funds for abortion’

[There - fixed it..]

Does anybody really believe that this amendment will survive in the final bill??

Don’t turn your back on ‘em for a second - keep up the pressure to kill the bill completely, and drive a stake through its black heart..

[Caleb1411]

Minnesota Democrat Collin Peterson will be one who continues to spurn the bill. He voted for the Stupak Amendment and against the bill. He’s a more consistent pro-life vote than probably half of the Republicans in the House.

[ken5050]

The House GOP leadership had seriously considered voting “present” on the Stupak amendment. That would have led to its defeat, and the the Blue Dogs would have voted against the Health Care bill. However, Boehner, Cantor, et al decided they had to honor their pledge to the Blue Dawgs...What about their pledge to the American people?

[livius]

The bishops were fools to stake all their opposition on this one issue, first of all, because it was so obvious that all the Dems would do was put in a “temporary” ban on abortion to get the bill passed.

I would think that even the bishops wouldn’t be naive enough to trust the Dems, for whom abortion is a sacrament of initiation. They’re not going to let it go.

Also, there were many other valid Catholic objections to the whole program, which numerous bishops have stated, and tying the criticism just to abortion and then accepting a pure eye-wash ban was incredibly dumb.

[dforest]

And the Wicked Witch San Fran Nan had a palpitation when passing this bill knowing the Stupid Stupak sham would be stripped from the bill later.

[Oldexpat]

This situation is just temporary. There are still three more big votes to come..senate..then house and senate.

[Big Giant Head]

If congress was sincere about wanting to make improvements; Why not select one state that is very supportive of the idea and do a test market there for a few years to see how the best laid plans of health care management can really work?

Uh, 'cause it's already been tried and shown to be an epic FAIL.

[Balding_Eagle]

Come on, NOBODY but single issue voters believe this ban will last more than a few months, and even the wiser single issue voters know it too.

[webschooner]

BS BS BS ... They are just gonna put it back in. If not in committee, then in a couple of years. All they care now is to pass the damn socialist bill.

I am against abortion, but one-issue voters sometimes hurt our cause, as on occasion they fail to see the big picture, and sometimes they get tricked, as in this case some pro-life congress critters got tricked into supporting a bill that will kill millions of seniors, just because Nancy (temporarily) took out a provision to pay for abortions.

[Illuminatas]

Sometimes you have to stand for something. If the pro-life members would not have voted for the amendment, would this make us any better than the rats? Definition is what the American public needs to make a decision at the balot box.

We have never won by being like them.

[Caleb1411]

. . .if the pro-life language is stripped from the bill during negotiations with the Senate, if Pelosi loses the support of any three of these people below as a result -- without picking up anybody else's support -- the bill cannot pass the House.

Joe Baca Marion Berry* Sanford Bishop Dennis Cardoza* Chris Carney* Jim Cooper* Jim Costa* Joseph Cao* Jerry Costello Henry Cuellar* Kathy Dahlkemper Joe Donnelly* Mike Doyle Steve Driehaus* Brad Ellsworth* Bob Etheridge* Baron Hill Paul Kanjorski* Marcy Kaptur* Dale Kildee Jim Langevin Daniel Lipinski Stephen Lynch Michael Michaud* Alan Mollohan John Murtha Richard Neal James Oberstar David Obey Solomon Ortiz Tom Perriello* Earl Pomeroy Nick Rahall Silvestre Reyes Ciro Rodriguez* Tim Ryan John Salazar Vic Synder Zack Space* John Spratt Bart Stupak* Charles Wilson

She'll lose more than 3.

[Caleb1411]

Some would be happy to see conservatives capitulate to the Planned Barrenhoods of the world, however.

"Planned Parenthood Federation of America has no choice but to oppose HR 3962," the group declared in a statement.

[patriotspride]

” 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”)”

Recall hearing one defense of this being “ Obama was talking about his bill ( never written of course) that did not contain this language”

Shows us how Clintonian Barry can be when it suits his purpose

[Carry_Okie]

If Stupid thought they weren't going to re-insert those funds in a conference committee, he's too dumb to hold office. The whole thing was a cynical ploy that the players know will do NOTHING to save the lives of innocents. It gave cover to cowardly weasels, nothing more.

[LilRhody]

Nah, she gave them cover, knowing that it would be pulled from the senate obamanation. Vote these jerks out!!!!!
40 billion abortions world wide? What the hell is the matter with these people!