RSS Feed MenuIn a recent interview, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) accused the White House and Democrats of pressuring him to not speak out about the abortion language in the Senate health care bill.
It really could come down to Stupak. It’s hard to see the Senate receding to the Stupak language, but if all the Republicans hold together, it could lose over abortion coverage. (On the substance, of course Stupak is right — the Senate language does weaken the Hyde amendment, no matter how it’s spun.)
balconesfault // Dec 23, 2009 at 11:54 am
Should it not bother Americans that Stupiak has been conferencing directly with the American Council of Bishops to craft amendment language that is acceptable to them?
Health Bill Rests on Stupak | bling // Dec 23, 2009 at 12:01 pm
[...] the abortion language in the Senate health care bill. It really could come down to Stupak.Source: New Majority Bookmark / [...]
JeninCT // Dec 23, 2009 at 12:37 pm
“balconesfault // Dec 23, 2009 at 11:54 am
Should it not bother Americans that Stupiak has been conferencing directly with the American Council of Bishops to craft amendment language that is acceptable to them?”
Valid question. It bothers me less than selling out citizens of 40-something states to fund medicaid in Nebraska, Florida ,Massachussets and one or two other states.
This bill stinks, and if Stupak is the one with the political will to squash is, more power to him.
balconesfault // Dec 23, 2009 at 1:08 pm
JeninCT: Valid question. It bothers me less than selling out citizens of 40-something states to fund medicaid in Nebraska, Florida ,Massachussets and one or two other states.
Whether it bothers you less than traditional backroom Congressional haggling designed to bring back money to states and districts isn’t really the question.
The question is whether we should take seriously any amendments drafted so as to gain the blessing of specific religious hierarchies.
JeninCT // Dec 23, 2009 at 3:41 pm
As a general rule, no, we shouldn’t legislate to gain the blessings of ANY single group, religious or not.
balconesfault // Dec 23, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Well, there we differ. Although I guess when it’s not a religous group’s cause, “blessings” is more metaphorical than literal.
There are any number of special interest groups out there which have very excellent reasons for advocating some policy change – often because they are way deeper in the weeds than most other people, and therefore identify necessary actions well before the rest of us.
And the value of a representative democracy is that they don’t have to convince a majority of the individuals in the country, many of whom may not have the training or interest or even the native intelligence to understand some very specific issues that justify regulation. Instead, they need to convince a majority of our elected of the importance of that action, and we trust those elected representatives to broker in our best interest … the same way that most of us don’t expect to be able to understand a contract to the same degree as the lawyer or agent we hire to represent us.
But from where I sit … I should be able to ask that lawyer or agent or representative why they represented me in a specific way … and the answer damn well better not be “because that’s how God wanted me to act”.
JeninCT // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:59 pm
True but if any kind of group shares beliefs, regardless of the basis of their beliefs, they should be free to try to lobby for their ideals the same as any other group. If you’re going to discount the counsel of the Bishops, then why not discount the doctors or any other group? The reason we have the moral codes we have isn’t nearly as important as the fact that we have them.
BoolaBoola // Dec 24, 2009 at 11:05 am
Stupak is a hired lackey of the Roman Catholic Church in USA. He should be tried for treason!
sinz54 // Dec 25, 2009 at 10:18 am
balconesfault: Should it not bother Americans that Stupiak has been conferencing directly with the American Council of Bishops to craft amendment language that is acceptable to them?
No.
The Jews have been lobbying for years.
Any group of Americans has a perfect right to petition the government to address its grievances.
And even if Stupak accepts the Catholics’ arguments, that doesn’t mean the rest of the House will.
That’s how our system works.
I’m willing to bet that the Catholic bishops are a lot less creepy than some of the other lobbyists that hang around Washington, lobbying for arms dealers and even for foreign governments. Because these bishops are arguing for a MORAL cause–not for their own personal self-aggrandizement.