Pence to Stupak: You traded 30 years of pro-life law for a promise from the most pro-abortion president in history

posted at 6:50 pm on March 21, 2010 by Allahpundit

Worth posting if only because one of the few things the left and right agree on today is that Obama’s executive order is essentially meaningless. Liberals, per dKos, David Corn, and Ezra Klein, think the Senate bill already does what Stupak wants it to do by maintaining the status quo on abortion funding, which means the EO is gratuitous. Pence thinks the Senate bill is a sharp break from the status quo, but since an EO is flimsy to begin with and an EO on this subject from someone as adamantly pro-choice as The One is even flimsier, it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on. Consensus: Stupak achieved nothing. Which is news to no one this afternoon except, I guess, Stupak himself. Or is it?

As I write this, Stupak’s congressional opponent has picked up two thousand fans on Facebook in about two hours. Ten thousand by tomorrow, I’ll bet.

Update: Instantly, the pressure on Obama to roll back the order begins.



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

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Benishek has over 12,000 fans on Facebook this morning, and now has his paypal button set up for contributions. I just donated $10, not much, I know, but if everyone who feels betrayed by Stupak gives $10, Benishek will have quite a campaign fund.

mbs on March 22, 2010 at 8:28 AM

Stupak was always going to vote yes. He just needed a little cover and Zero gave it to him. Did he ever sign the EO or was it just claimed to be signed by the msm? The propagandists won this round.

Kissmygrits on March 22, 2010 at 11:22 AM

From the FB page of Stupak’s congressional opponent Dan Benishek, a “friend” wrote:

Stupak spelled backwards is “Kaputs”, ironic and fitting.

hehe

He has 14, 189 members now.

sarainitaly on March 22, 2010 at 1:11 PM

STUPAK (v) an act of cowardly betrayal under pressure denoting abandoning all moral principles to placate superiors. Ex: ‘The surrendering captain stupaked his fellow officers after capture in order to curry favor with his captors’.

MaiDee on March 21, 2010 at 8:52 PM

Judas Iscariot.
Benedict Arnold.
Vidkun Quisling.
Bart Stupak.

“Which of these things is not like the others?” It’s a trick question — they’re all the same!

Mary in LA on March 22, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Stupak was always going to vote yes. He just needed a little cover and Zero gave it to him. Did he ever sign the EO or was it just claimed to be signed by the msm? The propagandists won this round.

Kissmygrits on March 22, 2010 at 11:22 AM

.
It doesn’t matter if he signs one, an EO can not trump congressional legislation. And the legislation calls for federal funding of abortion.

Dasher on March 22, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Hey, I thought Romney was hoping that abortion would not be an issue in 2012. With healthcare funding now covering some plans for abortion, looks like we will be looking for a POTUS nominee who is truly prolife. How can Romney represent that when his Romneycare has $50 copays for abortion.

texasconserv on March 22, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Hey, I thought Romney was hoping that abortion would not be an issue in 2012. With healthcare funding now covering some plans for abortion, looks like we will be looking for a POTUS nominee who is truly prolife. How can Romney represent that when his Romneycare has $50 copays for abortion.

texasconserv on March 22, 2010 at 10:51 PM

Romney was constitutionally mandated to have abortion in his health care plan. His hands were tied.

If Romney could get away with it, he wouldn’t allow such a provision in his plan.

Conservative Samizdat on March 23, 2010 at 3:47 AM

Romney was constitutionally mandated to have abortion in his health care plan. His hands were tied.

If Romney could get away with it, he wouldn’t allow such a provision in his plan.

Conservative Samizdat on March 23, 2010 at 3:47 AM

In 1981, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Moe v. Secretary of Admin & Finance, held that the state constitution required payment for abortion services for Medicaid eligible women and that when a state subsidizes medical care, it cannot infringe on the “exercise of a fundamental right” which the Massachusetts Supreme Court interpreted to mean access to medically necessary abortion.

In 1997, the Massachuesetts Supreme Court reaffirmed its position in Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Inc. v. Attorney General, that a state subsidized plan must offer “medically necessary abortions.”

As a result of these state Supreme Court cases, Mitt Romney’s hands were tied. He was required to have $50 copays for abortion in his health care plan. If Mitt wasn’t legally required to have abortion in his health care plan, it would have never been a part of his legislation.

Having abortion in Mitt’s health care plan will no doubt be an issue in 2012, if Mitt decides to run for President. However, Massachusetts state House Minority Leader Bradley Jones, in his defense of Mitt Romney, had this to say about the abortion issue:

“I know presidential politics are going to be rough and tumble and they’re going to try and trip him up, but they better look elsewhere on this one,” said Jones, adding that anti-abortion lawmakers had no issue with Romney’s health-care legislation because the SJC ruling predated the law. (Source.)

Conservative Samizdat on March 23, 2010 at 5:33 AM

Keep it up, guys. Keep their feet to the fire as Sarah Palin says – the American people, unfortunately, have short memories and with the Obama propaganda machine (CNN, WashPo, NYT, ABC, NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, etc.)in full force white-washing this White House we need to keep the attention focused on the corruption and incompetence of this Administration and Congress.

mozalf on March 23, 2010 at 7:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4