The President and his supporters want us to believe that their proposed health care legislation won’t cover abortions with federal funds. The President famously made this claim in his address of the Joint Session of Congress, framing it as a repudiation of people who are trying to “misinform” the citizenry.
Interestingly, at the time President Obama made his speech, the Energy and Commerce Committee had approved an amendment to the House bill (HR 3200) by Democratic Rep. Lois Capps which actually mandates that at least one insurance plan in each state-based “exchange”—the only place people receiving federal health-insurance subsidies will be allowed to buy health insurance—must cover abortions.
Enter Bart Stupak, one brave Democrat. I don’t know anything about this man outside of the following, but I admire his position on Presidential fabrications:
On Aug. 21, after Obama gave a radio talk insisting it was “not true” the health care plan would allow federal funding of abortion, FactCheck.org concluded, “Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.”
Nothing had changed by Sept. 9, when Obama reiterated his claim to the joint session of Congress.
In an interview last week, I read to Stupak the exact words Obama said that night about abortion funding. Stupak told me that when he got Obama on the phone, he had read those very words to Obama himself.
Obama responded to Stupak—a former police officer—that when he said these words he was not talking about the actual health care plan developed by the House, he was talking about his own plan—a plan that has never been written.
“I called him,” Stupak told me. “I called the president—had a discussion with the president. And I read exactly what you just said. And he said: What it says is ‘under my plan’—meaning the president’s plan. And I said: With all due respect, sir, you do not have a plan. The only plan we have out is the House plan. So, I don’t know if it is a game of semantics or what.”
Stupak said Obama did not try to tell him the House bill does not fund abortion.
I asked Stupak if, when Obama claimed “our plan” does not fund abortions, the president meant some plan that existed only “theoretically.”
“Correct,” said Stupak. “And when I pointed this out, he said: Go back and work with the people on your committee and get this matter worked out. Work with the speaker. Work with us, would you? And I said: Yes, I would. And we have tried.”
Our President is a manipulative, calculating wordsmith who has no allegiance to Truth.
Bart Stupak appears to be the remedy to such cunning.
Stupak, meanwhile, is standing by his vow to try to kill the health care bill entirely if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi does not allow a direct up or down vote on his amendment on the House floor.
Stupak told CNSNews.com last week that he has organized a group of “about 40 likeminded Democrats” who are supporting him in this effort.
Subscribe to Jane’s daily email.
Subscribe to Jane Q. by RSS Feed
12 Comments
November 1, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I think it is a huge linguistic stretch to say that the current proposals provide federal funding for abortion. The bill expressly states (through the Capps Amendment,) that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the woman. It is true that a woman purchasing private health insurance through the Insurance Exchanges can purchase a private plan that covers abortions. And, it is also true that the legislation will provide subsidies to Americans who cannot afford to purchase private insurance on their own so that they can do so. But it is pretty contorted to say that this amounts to federal funding of abortions. And it is simply unfair to use this to case asperions on the honesty and character of the President. Can’t we keep this on the issues and not throw cheap insults around?
November 2, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Why is it insulting to make the factual point that the President is a life-long habitual liar? That’s an important factor in judging his character, his motivations and his intentions — which I and so many believe are unutterably detestable.
November 2, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Even if we follow your twisted route, the end is the same. Government gives me money to buy private insurance. I get an abortion. Taxpayer money has just paid for an abortion.
But it is simpler than that. “Despite what Obama said, the House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan…” That’s pretty straightforward.
Sorry that my calling a liar a liar hurts your feelings. Obama is far too intelligent to be doing anything but lying. To claim otherwise is to make the case that he was confused.
November 2, 2009 at 2:30 pm
to Janeq: no government money will be spent on abortions. No public insurance plan will offer abortions. No Medicaid payments will pay for abortion unless the the life or health of the woman is at stake (just like it is under current law.) If someone wants to purchase a private insurance which includes abortion among all the other medical procedures that insurance happens to cover, they are free to do so, on their own dime. Some people who purchase private insurance will, it is true, get federal subsidies if they otherwise cannot afford insurance. Do you really, really think that fact proves that “[o]ur President is a manipulative, calculating wordsmith who has no allegiance to Truth?” Really? Right now citizens receive a special tax subsidy, through their employer, for enrolling in private insurance plans. Unlike other benefits I receive from my employer, I pay no tax on the health insurance benefits I receive. If my current private health insurance plan happens to cover abortion (among all other health services,) does that mean that the government is giving a tax subsidy to abortion? If so, then by your logic most Americans who have private health insurance are getting government tax subsidies for abortion. Why weren’t we told?
It is simply wrong to try to use the emotionally fraught issue of abortion to obtain some kind of political leverage in the debate over health insurance.
To Mr. Peck: you are making exactly the same kind of mistake we liberals made in the 1980s when we tried to convince Americans that a basically likable, decent, generally honest President was actually a bad, untrustworthy person. It did not work for us then. It will not work for you now.
Stick to the issues. Stop the mudslinging.
November 2, 2009 at 3:55 pm
JaneQ–
Doesn’t this blog have a feature where you can block trolls and disruptors that have nothing to offer except personal attacks?
Yeah, I’m talking’ about you, NewYorkPerson…
November 2, 2009 at 3:59 pm
to “snopercod.: “Personal attacks”?? I think you are projecting.
By the way, we are all still anxiously waiting to find out the source of the “Socialist axiom” that you cited in your other recent post. When might we expect it?
November 2, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Yes it does. Do you think it is time to pull the plug? I was all for letting nyp speak. He doesn’t persuade me at all, and sometimes I actually find him engaging. But lately he has been given to outright falsehoods and ad hominem silliness. I am beginning to believe he has been assigned to this blog and I am very disappointed. I will take your suggestion under serious consideration.
JQ
November 2, 2009 at 4:13 pm
To “Janeq”: More evidence, I see, of “The Closing of the Conservative Mind”.
I would be very interested in hearing more about my “ad hominem” attacks. It is truly remarkable that anyone would characterize my posts on this blog in such a manner. How would you rank my posts against those of, for example, “snopercod”?
I would also like to hear more about my “falsehoods.” How, for example, would you rank them against your post accusing the House Democrats of undermining a state “opt out” plan that doesn’t even exist in their health reform legislation?
It would be truly unfortunate if conservatives like yourself turned out to be so closed-minded, so wedded to your echo-chamber rhetoric, that you could not bear even to hear substantive, polite disagreement from your political opponents.
November 2, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Here’s the deal:
That is all
November 2, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Janeq:
1. No one is forcing you to respond to my comments, and the frequency of your posts seems to have grown rather than diminished. Indeed, you already seem to ignore the majority of my comments, largely, I suspect, because they point out obvious problems in your reasoning or your factual assertions, and you don’t really have a response. Perhaps, of course, I am completely wrong, and you choose, out of pity, to keep your devestating responses (concerning, for example, the House legislation and the “opt out”) to yourself in order to spare me further humiliation. In any event, if you don’t want to waste your time responding, don’t respond.
2. I cannot think of a respectable liberal blog that would cut off polite, non-obscene, substance-oriented comments from a conservative. Not one. If there is such a blog, it is not respectable. In any case, I would be interested in hearing about it.
3. Please don’t join some of your commentaters and start questioning my motive. I post comments on your blog because I strongly believe that the health care crisis is the most significant, and morally-laden domestic policy challenge our generation faces. My contribution is to respectfully engage fellow citizens whose views on health care differ from my own. I would think that would be a praiseworthy activity. But perhaps it adds a level of discomfort to those who spend too much time in communities of the like-minded. It would be much more comfortable, I admit, to stay within an ideological cocooon.
3. You clearly know, as well as I do, that I have not engaged in personal attacks and that my arguments have been extremely well documented. A question: would you say the same about the posts from “snopercod”? Or are personal attacks and factually unfounded statements acceptable if they come from a source whose ideology who are comfortable with?
November 2, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Another thing upon which we disagree. You think silence = assent. I think sometimes silence means no one is listening.
The problem here is that you are relentless and it gives on the impression that thi must be your occupation. I can’t imagine a person devoting the time energy to this blog that you obviously do without some outside influence motivating them. But you say you are interested in “respectfully engaging fellow citizens whose views on health care differ from your own.” Good enough.
I wonder why you don’t start your own blog? I have often thought that this whole discussion is very easy for you. You sit back and wait for me to post something so you can snipe at it. Why not blog your own opinions? Be the target instead of the sniper? My guess is because it takes much more courage to speak your mind than to simply oppose someone else’s opinions.
This is much ado about nothing. Comment here all you like. Don’t criticize me for not responding to you. I notice you don’t comment on every single post either. Nothing to say about the unconstitutionality of socialized medicine, the fraud of “global warming,” the tongue kiss for trial lawyers in the House health care bill…? Or perhaps “…you choose, out of pity, to keep your devestating responses to yourself in order to spare me further humiliation…”
Cuts both ways.
November 2, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Touche!!
Comments are closed.