« Terror in the Skies Requires Real Action on the Ground (Guest Voice)
Iranian Government Television Suggests Neda’s Death Was Faked »
Bart Stupak “Wears Scorn as a Medal”
Jodi Kantor’s profile of Bart Stupak is mostly about his image of himself as a persecuted maverick because of the stand he has taken against abortion coverage in his party’s health care legislation.
Matthew Yglesias has an excellent post on the weirdness of making a pro-life argument for opposing a bill that has saving lives as its entire reason for being:
The expansion of health insurance contained in this bill will save lives. But unless it also includes some restrictions on the ability of insurance plans to cover abortions, Bart Stupak will kill it. And that’s the pro-life position! Perhaps most absurdly of all, my understanding is that this really is the official Catholic Church position on issues of life and death. Taking political action to save the lives of children and adults is morally praiseworthy, but the obligation to take political action aimed at securing legal restrictions on abortions is paramount and actually overrides obligations to aid the poor and the sick.
For my money, however, the most stunning paragraph in this entire article is not about abortion. I still don’t know what to make of this — the second paragraph in the article — either in terms of what Jodi Kantor intended by sticking it there with no further explanation, or in terms of what it says about Bart Stupak. That’s the only comment I’ll make for now at least, because I really don’t know what else to say. Here is the paragraph:
After his younger son committed suicide in 2000, using the congressman’s gun, Mr. Stupak soon resumed his predawn commute to Washington and his solid voting record with the National Rifle Association.
9 Responses to “Bart Stupak “Wears Scorn as a Medal””
[...] Post By Google News Click Here For The Entire Article Review Maverick Money [...]
On the abortion question: This post sets up a false choice, as if we must choose either the well-being of those already born or those unborn. Our society is supposed to be an example to others, and that includes finding means to care for all of the above. Rep. Stupak's principled stand for the unborn is simply an acknowledgment that a piece of legislation of this magnitude must take everyone into consideration. Kudos to him, and my sincere condolences to he and his wife on the tragic loss of their son.
A quick look at Mr. Stupak's website shows that he has been involved in many legislative intiatives benefiting his constituents both born and unborn. It's that larger context that's missing from this post, Kathy. My condolences go out to he and his wife at the loss of their son.
“But if the time should ever come–and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible–when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.” -JFK, apparently not able to see the Stupaks coming down the line.
The National Rifle Association is an advocate for the safe and legal use of firearms. Why would Stupak oppose the NRA? They certainly don't favor people committing suicide by any means, let alone by shooting themselves.
I'm sure many in Congress have lost loved ones in automobile accidents as well. Nobody expects them to demand cars be banned.
This post sets up a false choice, as if we must choose either the well-being of those already born or those unborn”
[shrug] More illogical stuff. Most of us always have known there is no such false dichotomy, and never was.
* * *
“I'm sure many in Congress have lost loved ones in automobile accidents as well. Nobody expects them to demand cars be banned.”
Don't be surprised if they are the object of some abuse, and restriction, if not banned altogether (except for the politically favored Dems, of course). It's easier to start with other PC mental-illness-objects of attack first, though. (And even with automobiles, look to see selectivity, the worst treatment starting with or heavily skewed against larger automobiles, trucks, and Evil SUVs. Again, with favored Dem exceptions.) Million Moron Marches against the evil automobiles (or SUVs) someday should follow those against guns, nuclear anything and everything, and so on.
This post sets up a false choice, as if we must choose either the well-being of those already born or those unborn.
But that's exactly what the abortion coverage prohibition does, redbus — force a choice between the well-being of those already born and those who have not been born. It's not a false choice if the choice actually must be made.
I'd be interested to know details, Kathy, of how Stupak's amendment actually goes further than current law embodied in the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which simply says that no federal dollars may go toward an abortion. For example, Medicaid, a current form of government sponsored health care, does not provide for abortion. Rep. Stupak says his amendment simply maintains that status quo. I guess I'm missing the nuances of the argument here?
Well being! This is a health care bill, and seldom is abortion a health care issue for the mother. It is always a health care issue for the child (a choice between life or death). When abortion is not a health care issue it must be viewed as elective surgery that is a choice the mother can make but an insurance company should not have to pay.