Is He Serious, Niave or Has He Sold Out Completely
I am hereby nominating Bart Stupak for the 2010 Richard Rich award for Catholics who claim to be Pro-Life but have sold their soul to Obama & betrayed the Pro-Life movement as a result.
I saw this headline @ LifeNews & said to myself "He can't be serious! Has he totally ignored Obama's track record of broken promises when it comes to reducing or banning abortions. Given his snarky remarks about the Susan B. Anthony List revoking the award he was to get from them, I suspect he knows that what he did was wrong. He also knows Obama's word about what he will do when it comes to abortion can not be trusted.
This latest from Stupak convinces me that he should be the 2010 winner of the Richard Rich award for selling your soul & selling out your Catholic faith. In this case, as I pointed out yesterday, he got $726,409 for 3 airports in his district on Friday. But, there may be more. Laura Ingraham said on her program Monday that she thinks Stupak may have been promised a cabinet post of something like that after he loses in Nov for voting this way. & it is very likely he will lose. He is facing a primary challenge from a pro-abort radical feminist. On the Republican side, I know of 2 primary candidates for sure, Linda Goldthorpe & Dr. Dan Benishek. Both are Pro-life. Benishek doesn't have his website up, just a Facebook page. Goldthorpe has both. Under issues she has a specific "Right to Life" page that opens with a quote from Mother Teresa. Despite his latest, I doubt he has few friends left on the Democrat side. & he definitely has very few, if any on the Pro-Life side. So, as I said, I think it is a safe bet that in Jan he will be retiring from Congress.
Those of you familiar with the movie or play "A Man for All Seasons" are familiar with the Richard Rich reference. The 1st unofficial winner of the award was Doug Kmiec by popular acclamation of a large number of us bloggers. Kmiec's reward was an ambassadorship to Malta. I don't know if I am the 1st to nominate Stupak, but even if I am not, I am adding my voice to those who are/will do so.
To borrow a quote from "A Man for All Seasons" (slightly paraphrased): "Why Bart, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for airport repairs?
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
March 22, 2010
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In comments to Fox News today, Congressman Bart Stupak admitted pro-abortion President Barack Obama could repeal the executive order he promised Stupak in exchange for a handful of pro-life Democrats supporting the health care bill that funds and promotes abortions.
"The president didn't sign it to rip it up tomorrow," Stupak said about the executive order Obama is supposed to sign along with the legislation.Yet, he added, "You're right, Megyn, there is nothing that would stop this president from a month from now, a year from now, ten years from now, of repealing this executive order."
Despite opposition from pro-life groups, the executive order "is worth more than the paper it is written on... History shows us that an executive order has the whole force of law. It is just as good as having a law,'' Stupak said. "Would I have liked to have had a law... absolutely."
"The only option you had was leave the Senate language or strengthen it to prevent abortions under an executive order -- that's what we did, we stayed true to those principles -- or vote no.,'' he said. "So you kill the bill and we do not have health care... I've always said I want to see health care for the nation.''
Stupak claims that a law banning abortion funding could just as easily be overturned as an executive order, even though the Hyde amendment has withstood for decades while the Mexico City Policy has been revoked with every pro-abortion president.
"Whether it's an executive order or a statute, the next Congress or even this Congress can overturn a law in the next six months," he told Fox News.But the conservative blog Hot Air disagrees with the statement.While "technically correct," the blog says it "is (a) dishonest, given that pro-choicers wouldn’t have had 60 votes in the Senate to undo it, and (b) surreal insofar as it amounts to an admission that the last few months of pro-life brinksmanship on his part were shadowplay.""If the risk of pro-life legislation being undone was so great as to make an executive order an acceptable substitute to him, why didn’t he negotiate an executive order from the very beginning?" Hot Air asked.
Stupak pointed out that some pro-abortion groups joined all pro-life organizations in condemning the executive order deal, -- leading him to think he made a good decision.
"That obviously must be a good piece of legislation if both sides are mad at ya," he said, adding that having an imperfect bill is better than no bill at all.
However, Planned Parenthood released a statement calling passage of the pro-abortion bill a "victory" giving it more business and saying the executive order is essentially meaningless.
During the Fox news interview, Stupak also responded further to the decision by officials with the Susan B. Anthony List to revoke an award they planned to give him at their Wednesday night gala.
"I would just say to Susan B. Anthony they can give their Defender of Life award to whoever they choose,'' he said. "I did not do it to win an award; I did it because I stood for the principle to protect the sanctity of life. I've done that... If I would have followed Susan B. Anthony's way it wouldn't have worked."
"The president didn't sign it to rip it up tomorrow," Stupak said about the executive order Obama is supposed to sign along with the legislation.Yet, he added, "You're right, Megyn, there is nothing that would stop this president from a month from now, a year from now, ten years from now, of repealing this executive order."
Despite opposition from pro-life groups, the executive order "is worth more than the paper it is written on... History shows us that an executive order has the whole force of law. It is just as good as having a law,'' Stupak said. "Would I have liked to have had a law... absolutely."
"The only option you had was leave the Senate language or strengthen it to prevent abortions under an executive order -- that's what we did, we stayed true to those principles -- or vote no.,'' he said. "So you kill the bill and we do not have health care... I've always said I want to see health care for the nation.''
Stupak claims that a law banning abortion funding could just as easily be overturned as an executive order, even though the Hyde amendment has withstood for decades while the Mexico City Policy has been revoked with every pro-abortion president.
"Whether it's an executive order or a statute, the next Congress or even this Congress can overturn a law in the next six months," he told Fox News.But the conservative blog Hot Air disagrees with the statement.While "technically correct," the blog says it "is (a) dishonest, given that pro-choicers wouldn’t have had 60 votes in the Senate to undo it, and (b) surreal insofar as it amounts to an admission that the last few months of pro-life brinksmanship on his part were shadowplay.""If the risk of pro-life legislation being undone was so great as to make an executive order an acceptable substitute to him, why didn’t he negotiate an executive order from the very beginning?" Hot Air asked.
Stupak pointed out that some pro-abortion groups joined all pro-life organizations in condemning the executive order deal, -- leading him to think he made a good decision.
"That obviously must be a good piece of legislation if both sides are mad at ya," he said, adding that having an imperfect bill is better than no bill at all.
However, Planned Parenthood released a statement calling passage of the pro-abortion bill a "victory" giving it more business and saying the executive order is essentially meaningless.
During the Fox news interview, Stupak also responded further to the decision by officials with the Susan B. Anthony List to revoke an award they planned to give him at their Wednesday night gala.
"I would just say to Susan B. Anthony they can give their Defender of Life award to whoever they choose,'' he said. "I did not do it to win an award; I did it because I stood for the principle to protect the sanctity of life. I've done that... If I would have followed Susan B. Anthony's way it wouldn't have worked."
Labels: ObamaCare
posted by Al @ 12:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home