Stupak: Don’t test me on abortion, Democrats

posted at 1:36 pm on November 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

After the House adopted the Pelosi Plan for ObamaCare with the Stupak amendment barring any federal funds for abortion coverage, Democrats attempted to assuage pro-abortion advocates by committing to changing the language in conference committee.  Even the White House got in on the act, with David Axelrod promising that Bart Stupak’s language would be “adjusted” before any bill came to the Oval Office.  Today on Fox News, Stupak threatened to kill the bill entirely if Democrats “adjusted” his amendment — and took a shot at David Axelrod as well:


Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) pledged this morning to defeat healthcare reform if his abortion amendment is taken out, saying 10 to  20 pro-life Democrats would vote against a bill with weaker language.

“They’re not going to take it out,” Stupak said on Fox and Friends, referring to Senate Democrats. “If they do, health care will not move forward.”

Stupak’s amendment prohibits any insurance plan on a potential healthcare exchange from accepting federal subsidies if it covers abortion. Pro-choice lawmakers say that language is too broad and would drastically reduce access to abortion. …

“[T]hat is why Mr. Axelrod is not a legislator, he doesn’t really know what he is talking about.”

Stupak says he has somewhere between 10-20 votes that would flip if they strip his amendment. That’s a far cry from his 40 votes when he insisted on getting an up-or-down vote in the first place. It wouldn’t keep the conference bill from getting passed in the House, but his activism on the issue may make it stickier for Democrats to do anything in the Senate to water it down. Ben Nelson has already demanded Stupak’s language in the Senate bill before he’ll allow it to proceed, which will infuriate other Senate Democrats like Barbara Boxer.

Bottom line: this has created a fault line for Democrats that they didn’t need in 2009, and they risk a bad split with Catholics over it, as Politico reports:

By teeing up a public battle over abortion in the health care bill now before the Senate, congressional Democrats could be risking more than just the fate of the legislation.

Hanging in the balance are millions of Catholic swing voters who moved decisively to the Democrats in 2008 and who could shift away just as readily in 2010.

According to exit polls, President Barack Obama won the support of 53 percent of Catholic voters, a seven-point increase over the showing of the Democrats’ 2004 nominee, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), a Catholic. Among Latino Catholics, who are often more conservative than their white counterparts on social issues, Obama did even better, winning more than two-thirds of their support, a 14-point improvement over Kerry’s totals, according to an analysis by the Pew Research Center.

Those gains will be at risk if a polarizing abortion fight takes place in the Senate.

This further confirms that Republican support for Stupak’s amendment was not just the right thing to do on principle, but on strategy as well.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

He’s lying. He’s a democrat.

LtE126 on November 17, 2009 at 1:37 PM

Civil War.

Enoxo on November 17, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Uh huh. Until Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid agree to fund pet projects for his 20 allies, at which point Stupak will likely be all alone. That is if he doesn’t fold.

There are very few truly conservative Democrats. They’re mostly regular Democrats who have to keep in check because they were elected in Republican districts during anti-GOP years.

amerpundit on November 17, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Stupak is stupid if he thinks that the liberals will leave his amendment in. Zero already says he wants it throwen out.
Wonder what Stupak’s next move will be? It’s coming out of the bill.

Brat4life on November 17, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Democrat = lying POS. Don’t believe a word any of them say.

angryed on November 17, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Falling Obama poll numbers and plummeting healthcare reform numbers sure are making Stupak more macho.

myrenovations on November 17, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Party divided by the abortion issue = Democrats, and they have been for a long time.

fiatboomer on November 17, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Looks like Michelle Bachman isn’t San Fran Nan’s enemy #1 anymore. Pass the Popcorn BUT don’t pass the bill!

Dire Straits on November 17, 2009 at 1:40 PM

Look for all kinds of dirt being dug up or made up about Stupak.

pedestrian on November 17, 2009 at 1:41 PM

Abort the bill.

ICBM on November 17, 2009 at 1:42 PM

It wouldn’t keep the conference bill from getting passed in the House, but his activism on the issue may make it stickier for Democrats to do anything in the Senate to water it down.

You lost me, how is that true when the thing only passed 220-215 the first time? if even 3 people flipped their vote the thing is toast!

gsherin on November 17, 2009 at 1:42 PM

So, its ok to confiscate and rule over 1/6 of the
US economy as long as you don’t pay for abortions?

I cannot predict what will happen with this because stupid is random..

alexwest on November 17, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Here’s the basic problem for the Democrats:

They envision this health care legislation as re-creating the entire health care structure in the United States. Under the current structure, abortion is legal and by-and-large paid for by private individuals or private insurance.

However the goal of the Democrats is to do away with the private health sector, putting everything directly or indirectly under government control.

Well, that includes abortion and so if abortion is not part of the Democratic health plan, it’s not part of health period (in their eyes). So they cannot give up abortion w/out fundamentally changing their health proposal. It’s not just about abortion, it’s about everything.

PackerBronco on November 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Remember David Bonior? Major league lefty but was pro-life and was elected Minority Whip for the Dems. Division over abortion isn’t a recent development for these guys.

fiatboomer on November 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Hanging in the balance are millions of Catholic swing voters who moved decisively to the Democrats in 2008 and who could shift away just as readily in 2010.

Keep that in mind when atheist AllahPundit preaches from his pulpit that Republicans should run ONLY as fiscal conservatives, and not as both fiscal and social conservatives.

Gabe on November 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM

I love the sound of liberal b*tch bashing between the house and senate.

SHARPTOOTH on November 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM

You lost me, how is that true when the thing only passed 220-215 the first time? if even 3 people flipped their vote the thing is toast!

gsherin on November 17, 2009 at 1:42 PM

You can’t assume that every Dem that voted against would not be willing to vote for under different circumstances. Some may have been allowed to vote “no” for local reasons and/or to mask the true Dem vote count for when it comes back from conference to stymie GOP efforts to get the correct number of switchovers.

alexwest on November 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM

I wonder if we will hear that Stupak wrote a paper in 8th grade that was for tradional families or that he is addicted to coffee?

di butler on November 17, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Why did they even say it out loud? Why did they say b4 the Senate vote that it would be altered in committee? These people are sooooo stupid! I mean, I’m glad about it and all, but they can’t even play poker, so hey, let’s let them run healthcare. Riiiiiggghhhtt!!!!!!!!!!!

JAM on November 17, 2009 at 1:47 PM

alexwest on November 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Granted, the real vote to watch was the motion to recommit which I think only got like 12 Dems to vote for it. to me that means about 245 Dems must not object to this enough to stop it from becoming law even if they vote against it to save their own ass.

gsherin on November 17, 2009 at 1:49 PM

This further confirms that Republican support for Stupak’s amendment was not just the right thing to do on principle, but on strategy as well.

Uhm…that statement is only true if it does not pass. If it does pass…then the strategy will be a factual failure.

I do hope you’re right though.

javamartini on November 17, 2009 at 1:50 PM

When this thing finally comes up for a vote in January, people are going to be coming back from vacations wondering why the hell Congress is still talking only about Obamacare when unemployment is still over 10%.

pedestrian on November 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM

I’m beginning to believe that the ‘rats are making this into a poison pill to get out from under Obamacare without having to vote the bastard down. It’s hard to see how the pace of the legislative process isn’t going to run right into the 2010 elections and what Congressman wants the voters to remember that they voted for federally funding abortion or sending people to jail for not having health insurance? Even Jim Moran isn’t that stupid and he’s as dumb as they come.

highhopes on November 17, 2009 at 1:55 PM

It is so abundantly clear that Odumbo was lying when talking about the bill and payment for abortions. He is an utter failure and liar as well.

rjoco1 on November 17, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Okay, again, Stupak said he would vote FOR the Health Care Bill even if the Abortion amendment failed. He just wanted an up/down vote on it.

I don’t see why this is any different now except for some bread and circuses.

Skywise on November 17, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Both parties are coalitions, and every coalition is subject to significant strains. The crapbag media loves to put the protoscope to Republicans, but the Democrat coalition is much more unwieldy. When Demos govern the cracks emerge, and without Peron in 1992 Clinton would almost certainly not have won ( studies showed that almost all Perot voters were disaffected Republican voters or people who previously did not vote )

The only other Demo Prez in over 40 years is Carter, who barely won despite Watergate and a bludgeoned economy and a non-elected opponent running a bad campaign.

Obama used race and the Tanked Economy to win, but it is possible that the Democrat coalition is untenable–so what we’re seeing is The Inevitable

the collapse of a major Party…

Janos Hunyadi on November 17, 2009 at 1:56 PM

Keep that in mind when atheist AllahPundit preaches from his pulpit that Republicans should run ONLY as fiscal conservatives, and not as both fiscal and social conservatives.

Gabe on November 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM

That’s because he hates social conservatives as much as anyone who routinely bashes Christians and traditional values would. They just aren’t his issues because he is perfectly fine with the left’s social agenda of same sex marriage, abortion on demand, and all the other things that some of us view as destructive society. Put another way, I have no desire to live in Allah’s world.

highhopes on November 17, 2009 at 1:58 PM

That whole thing is a rigged poker chip, used to lure pubbies in. Don’t kid yourselves that Stupac et al will not roll over for a meaningless change in wording. Same thing for the funding issue. That also applies to Ben Nelson. They will make a brave stand for the sake of appearence, then decide their needs have been satisfied by some sleight of hand and vote “Aye”. Its all theater

a capella on November 17, 2009 at 1:59 PM

IMHO they can pass it with a provision to not spend money on abortion but a court will immediately say it is unconstitutional and in the end the SCOTUS will agree. I don’t like it but that is how it will play.

CWforFreedom on November 17, 2009 at 1:59 PM

if abortion is what kills the bill, great. But I’m a little disheartened that this is what does it. The fact it will cost $2T, and vastly reduce access seems to be **the** reasons. It’s a little messed up that so many Dems are saying yea this is a great bill except for abortion.

And don’t count Nancy out just yet. This might all be a show. Then magically in an effort of BIPARTISANSHIP she drops her opposition to Stupak and gets it passed. Abortion is important to Dems. But nationalized health care is the grand daddy of them all. It’s been their wet dream for 50 years.

Just saying…careful what you ask for.

angryed on November 17, 2009 at 2:00 PM

highhopes on November 17, 2009 at 1:58 PM

That’s funny, I always thought of Allah as at least generally pro-life. I don’t recall him ever advocating federal funding of abortions or any other form of abortion on demand… and I’ve even seen him bash Planned Parenthood more than once.

fiatboomer on November 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Keep that in mind when atheist AllahPundit preaches from his pulpit that Republicans should run ONLY as fiscal conservatives, and not as both fiscal and social conservatives.

Gabe on November 17, 2009 at 1:45 PM

THANK YOU. I read his work here, but there is usually a huge grain of eye-rolling when covering “religious” people here. I don’t know why Michelle lets him run the HA roost, as she does not comport with his views on these matters.

leftnomore on November 17, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Write and call your Senators. If they don’t hear anything from their voters then they will do what ever they want to do to get the Health Scam passed.

I e-mailed my two Senators this morning and plan to remind them to vote no every morning until the ram, cram, jam scam is voted on.

yoda on November 17, 2009 at 2:10 PM

Abortion is a losing issue. Not only is the majority of Americans pro-life, but not even in the most decadent of teen and adult dramas does any character receive any sympathy for choosing abortion. No likable character ever chooses that option, no matter how pro-choice they claim to be.

Queen0fCups on November 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM

You can bet the farm that Bambi and the baby killers will be on the same team and the same side.

Roe vs. O

bluegrass on November 17, 2009 at 2:16 PM

A democrat standing upon principle is like finding honor amongst thieves. Let’s see how long this lasts?

Stupak, did you see what happened to Paterson and Kyl when they crossed Obama? Nice state you got there Bart, it’d be a shame if something happened to it.

ted c on November 17, 2009 at 2:20 PM

You lost me, how is that true when the thing only passed 220-215 the first time? if even 3 people flipped their vote the thing is toast!

gsherin on November 17, 2009 at 1:42 PM

It’s Kabuki Theater, a show for the masses who are 1/2 awake. If Peelosi had wanted all the Damn Dems she would have through bribery and intimidation had them.

Even she is not stupid enough to risk house seats when all she needed was a majority the rest were allowed to vote no for cover.

And Puuulllleeeese don’t tell me this risks the Catholic vote, what next the Jews gonna jump ship too?

Old time Catholics are dem voters and will abandon their religion to stay that way, then repent.
Wherever there are 4 catholics gathered together there is a fifth!
http://www.christianbrothersbrandy.com/index2.html

dhunter on November 17, 2009 at 2:21 PM

Among Latino Catholics, who are often more conservative than their white counterparts on social issues, Obama did even better, winning more than two-thirds of their support, a 14-point improvement over Kerry’s totals, according to an analysis by the Pew Research Center.

Wow, way to go. So, let me see if I’ve got it. Latino Catholics (and many Catholics in general, it would seem) have “conservative” values but can be easily bought off with promises of free stuff and redistribution of wealth? Awesome. I’m a Rhode Island Catholic born in the 60′s and this is why I now consider myself non-denominational Christian. Here in Dallas, my brother-in-law converted to Catholicism and sends his kids to Catholic school. His priest has an OBAMA STICKER on his car. Umm, no thanks!

mrsmwp on November 17, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Those bus tires leave a mark.

bloviator on November 17, 2009 at 2:22 PM

The whole bill needs to be aborted.

marklmail on November 17, 2009 at 2:24 PM

I don’t trust or support any politican who would base their vote for this monstrosity on one issue: abortion. Doctors “Providers” jailed for practicing private medicine? Americans jailed by their government for refusal to purchase a product? A massive socialist disaster-yea-or-nay soley on ONE ISSUE!?! Get lost, jerk.

Marcus on November 17, 2009 at 2:31 PM

Rep. Bart Stupid (D-Mich.) pledged this morning to defeat healthcare reform if his abortion amendment is taken out, saying 10 to 20 pro-life Democrats would vote against a bill with weaker language.

40… 10 to 20… 1.

sesquipedalian on November 17, 2009 at 2:33 PM

You have to love the Dem Infighting…one just has to hope he means it!!

http://www.2012-today.blogspot.com

walker_ro on November 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM

While abortion is just one of the MANY problems with this travesty of a bill, I respect his courage to stand up for his beliefs. Us cynics may all wait for the inevitable cave-in, but as far as lip-service goes…not too bad. At least it is a change from Pelosi’s blatant “holier and smarter than thou” attitudes.

search4truth on November 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Let the libtards fight amongst themselves-we are on the threshold of greatness

hawkman on November 17, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Despite the FACT that 75% of House Democrats voted AGAINST the Stupak amendment but NOT ONE REPUBLICAN voted against it (176 yeas & 1 “present”), a bulletin from the US Catholic bishops credited “a growing contingent of pro-life Democrats” with championing the passage of the amendment.

jay12 on November 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM

fiatboomer on November 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Bottom line, social conservatives are part of the equation and if Allah or anybody else thinks that running on fiscal conservatism alone wins elections, they ought to make that fact known to President McCain. The GOP will never win elections so long as there is this unfounded arrogance that social conservatives are fringe participants in the GOP base to be despised and sneered at as Allah is constantly doing.

highhopes on November 17, 2009 at 2:47 PM

a bulletin from the US Catholic bishops credited “a growing contingent of pro-life Democrats” with championing the passage of the amendment.

jay12 on November 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM

The US Catholic Bishops should have been championing the pro-life cause. They stayed on the sidelines until the very end and then they cut a deal for endorsing HR-3200. Upon passage, Pelosi immediately said that the whole thing was going to be eliminated in whatever comes out of committee. For that reason alone, the Bishops need to be the ones fighting this issue. They got this bill through the Congress and now they have to live with the consequences.

highhopes on November 17, 2009 at 2:51 PM

Stupak, did you see what happened to Paterson and Kyl when they crossed Obama? Nice state you got there Bart, it’d be a shame if something happened to it.

ted c on November 17, 2009 at 2:20 PM

That’s what is nice about Stupak coming from Michigan. Please explain to me one thing that the filthy lying coward in the White House or his corrupt party could do to damage Michigan more than they already have accomplished under Jennifer Granholm! They gonna cut jobs in Detroit as a result of this bill?

highhopes on November 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM

For that reason alone, the Bishops need to be the ones fighting this issue. They got this bill through the Congress and now they have to live with the consequences.

highhopes on November 17, 2009 at 2:51 PM

I know for a fact that the US Catholic Church, led by the bishops, had the opportunity in 1987 to effectuate the reversal of Roe v Wade, which would have become a reality by the early ’90s, but instead they continued to partner with the Democratic Party, making permanent America’s acceptance of abortion as a right.

jay12 on November 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM

I know for a fact that the US Catholic Church, led by the bishops, had the opportunity in 1987 to effectuate the reversal of Roe v Wade, which would have become a reality by the early ’90s, but instead they continued to partner with the Democratic Party, making permanent America’s acceptance of abortion as a right.

jay12 on November 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM

IMO, the RCC hierarchy in the US have not been good keepers of the faith. They have wobbled and refused to take stands on fundamental issues like abortion or the sanctity of marriage as being between a man and a woman. It’s not enough to preach these tenets when they also go out there and play “lets make a deal” with the political process. The US Bishops endorsement of Pelosicare did not condemn abortion, merely put in provisions to protect the funding stream. That falls far short of where the Bishops should be on this issue and there is no denying that fact.

highhopes on November 17, 2009 at 3:16 PM

I agree with the above posters. Stupak is fill of shyte.

dogsoldier on November 17, 2009 at 4:15 PM

I guess Nanzi is going to have up her offer…

d1carter on November 17, 2009 at 4:16 PM

On the lighter side, should the Stupak Amendment amendment be stripped out, the 10 month waiting period cause by government health care rationing may make the amendment a moot point.

Seriously, you can’t expect the party of “Death to the Innocents” to not pull every trick in the book to keep abortion legal. It is part of their religion.

Duncan Khuver on November 17, 2009 at 4:22 PM

One word: Bluff.

Three words to the GOP: Don’t act stupidly.

madmonkphotog on November 17, 2009 at 4:51 PM

I don’t know he sounded genuine here on Abortion. They guy might actually stick to his guns even though the media was spinning his amendment as just some sort of political ploy he would be willing to negotiate on in the future.

Are you listening david frum and charles johnson? You despise the pro-lifers yet it might be the pro-life movement which saves us from this disaster of a health bill.

Daemonocracy on November 17, 2009 at 4:58 PM

I expect that the Usual Supsects will mount a primary challenge to Rep. Stupak. Best of luck with that, Rep. Stupak. I’d wager that this will be your last term in office.

I R A Darth Aggie on November 17, 2009 at 5:02 PM

There is no unified “catholic vote”. There are at least four major groups of “catholics”, engaged in both a civil war and a war with the modern world.

(1)The liberals: Conciously promoting liberal modernism (heresy/apostasy) these are a clear minority but wield disproportionate influence since they are almost never checked by the hierarchy, a hiererchy they have pervasivly infiltrated.

(2) Mainstream catholics: A sheepish majority that is rather ignorant about catholic doctrine and morals but nevertheless considers itself catholic but in effect they often follow the dominating secular thought and uses that together with their ignorance as a lens through which they view everything catholic. In a liberal parish/diocese they easily follow liberalism. In a conservative parish they half-heartedly and somewhat confusedly follow conservatism without really figuring out the difference between catholicism and the world. Since the world is liberal this group tends to further and further compromises with liberalism to feel comfortable. The bishops who more often than not fail to cathechise them have alot to answer for.

(3) Conservative catholics. much smaller than the mainstream group but also many more than the outright liberals. This group is rather diverse but it can be said that it at least makes a concious effort to live a catholic life even though that life doesn’t square too well with secular sensibilities. Unfortunately this group is also rather quitet when it comes to the crisis in the church bc of an overemphaisis on obediece end deference to authority at all costs, even when the authority in question is rather liberal or disinterested in conservative catholic issues.

(4) Traditionalist catholics, of both the Indult and the Lefebvrian strands. A very small group, (proportion of traditionalists vary greatly) only somewhat bigger than the liberals, but growing. People who are generally heavily invested in the catholic faith and to some extent living a catholic life as before Vatican II in the 60ies.
-
This would be the only group that conservatives could count on acting as a “catholic vote” if with that vote is understood something coherent with catholic social and economic doctrine. This group is however so small that it is totally insignificant on the national level.
-
The hope is to reach the group of conservative catholics but that is impossible without first reforming the church and restore proper authority – something pope Benedict has initiated but is very far from completing. There will never be order in the church until there is order among the bishops. Pope Benedict himself has said as much.

JC Silverberg on November 17, 2009 at 5:08 PM

While I’m glad to see Stupak stand up to his Party leaders, it appears that the abortion issue is being used as a smoke screen, as if abortion is the only appalling thing about this bill. This health care bill is disastrous in every way, not just abortion. Higher health care costs, higher taxes, higher deficit, higher national debt and quality of care plummets. You’re telling me that voters from Stupak’s district will re-elect him if this bill passes with his amendment but with everything else going to hell in a hand basket? I ask the same question of Ben Nelson’s constituents. I highly doubt it. If Stupak’s district is like most other Blue Dog districts, this guy will get kicked out on his ear if this bill makes it to the President’s desk.

ncconservative on November 17, 2009 at 5:12 PM

Bart Stupak is my congressman. I will assure you that Bart will roll over and play dead on the final vote.

Bart lives in one of the few, small urban areas in the wilds of the UP. He is reveling in the attention he is getting. It’s more than he has ever received in all the years in Congress, in the entirety of his career.

Tell me: ever heard of Bart Stupak before, in the 18 years he has been in office?

He has 7 district offices, 3 in the Lower Peninsula and 4 in the Upper Peninsula. They are staffed by a district representative and 8 congressional aides. I have yet to ever talk to anybody who has ever gotten any real satisfaction from them on any issue. Bart Stupak is a “ghost” around the area.

Yoop on November 17, 2009 at 5:32 PM

That’s what is nice about Stupak coming from Michigan. Please explain to me one thing that the filthy lying coward in the White House or his corrupt party could do to damage Michigan more than they already have accomplished under Jennifer Granholm! They gonna cut jobs in Detroit as a result of this bill?

highhopes on November 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Bart lives in the UP. They may threaten to do away with two jobs of the five people we have left employed up here.

Yoop on November 17, 2009 at 5:39 PM

I don’t often get a chance to credit Democrats, but Bart Stupak is doing a great service to our country, IMhO. He’s taking a principled stand – win or lose – which is something I wish the so-called “fiscally conservative” Republicans had done during the first 6 years of the Bush presidency. And, if he’s got 10-20 Dems to vote against the bill without his amendment (plus Cao, who I don’t think would vote for the bill without it), it will be very difficult for the thing to pass in the House, which is good.

jdp629 on November 17, 2009 at 5:42 PM

why should the Dems worry about losing the Catholic vote? is this because Splash is dead? no one to lead them? isn’t Pelosi Catholic?

kelley in virginia on November 17, 2009 at 5:55 PM

ncconservative on November 17, 2009 at 5:12 PM

I agree. If this is Stupaks only issue, then we’re doomed with, or without funding abortions. This bill needs to die. I guess that idiot was right. I’m a conservative, and I want this bill to die, and die quickly!

capejasmine on November 17, 2009 at 6:28 PM

Anyway of getting out of this in 2010 and 2012?

nondhimmie on November 17, 2009 at 7:36 PM

http://www.veteranoutrage.com

I’ve said it before and i’ll say it again

You cannot be a liberal, and be pro life..
Not without pissing off every liberal in the entire usa..

So i wouldnt call this a fault line hell no
i would call it a line in the sand
and its gonna be interesting to see
how they try to hide it..

How much you wanna bet they will do something like

you can only have an abortion if you live in mozambique
and am an american citizen

Pass some bs like this knowing full well
the supreme court would then rule
you cant deny other poor desperate americans this same RIGHT
thats allowed in mozambique..

and volla
there ya go
an abortion option paid for by obami nazi care
all funded by the us tax payer
and even thought they put in language to stop it
they just bypassed it..

This is why no one trusts congress
and personally why i will not ever ever obey any laws this administration passes..

why should i
They are using the legal system to SCREW the us citizenry
and rape the treasury all to buy off political power.

I think a revolt is comming real soon..

veteranoutrage on November 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM

I’m beginning to believe that the ‘rats are making this into a poison pill to get out from under Obamacare without having to vote the bastard down. It’s hard to see how the pace of the legislative process isn’t going to run right into the 2010 elections and what Congressman wants the voters to remember that they voted for federally funding abortion or sending people to jail for not having health insurance? Even Jim Moran isn’t that stupid and he’s as dumb as they come.

highhopes on November 17, 2009 at 1:55 PM

When you’re right, you’re right. Remember above all else stinking lib congress critters are self serving first, last, and always. If they feel threatened they find a way out. Our only hope is PeloNAZI mis-mangling the calendar and not having enough time to bribe enough votes.

Blacksmith8 on November 18, 2009 at 2:03 PM