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.
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.