Stupak language appears in new bill … sans Stupak

posted at 3:20 pm on May 2, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The new ObamaCare bill will mandate funding for abortions if Congress ever fails to pass the Hyde Amendment, which has to get a new vote every year during the budget cycle.  Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) had led a coalition of pro-life Democrats in the House last fall that demanded and got an amendment to the bill that would have made the restrictions against federal funding of abortion permanent as part of the new law, but the Senate stripped out the language and Stupak and most of his allies settled instead for a meaningless executive order.  Rep. Joseph Pitts has now offered a new bill that restores the Stupak language to ObamaCare, collecting 57 co-sponsors — but only a few of Stupak’s coalition, and not Stupak himself:

None of the pro-life Democrats who backed the pro-abortion health care bill in the House have signed on a co-sponsors of new legislation to apply the Hyde amendment to it. The new bill, the Protect Life Act, would fix the several different ways in which the measure funds abortions.

When Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed the new government-run health care bill, some pro-life Democrats supported it saying pro-life groups and lawmakers were wrong and that the measure did not contain taxpayer funding of abortion.

Obama signed an executive order that supposedly curbed the abortion funding, but pro-life groups say it merely restated the provisions of the bill and could easily be overturned in court and has no legal power to trump the abortion funding provisions. …

Several Democrats have signed on to the measure, led by pro-life Rep. Joe Pitts, a Pennsylvania Republican.

The Democrats co-sponsoring Pitts’ bill are Reps. Travis Childers of Mississippi, Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Tim Holden of Pennsylvania, Dan Lipinski of Illinois, Jim Marshall of Georgia, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina and Gene Taylor of Mississippi.

Each of these pro-life members of Congress voted against the final pro-abortion health care bill Obama signed.

None of the pro-life Democrats who backed the measure — such as Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Steve Driehaus of Ohio, or Reps. Allan Mollohan and Nick Rahall of West Virginia — have signed onto the legislation as co-sponsors.

That includes Rep. Bart Stupak, the leader of the coalition of pro-life Democrats who enabled passage of the pro-abortion bill.

The bill in question is HR5111, introduced a little over a week ago. The language that it uses to amend ObamaCare is almost identical to that in Stupak’s amendment. Here it is in its entirety:

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to modify special rules relating to coverage of abortion services under such Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MODIFYING SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES UNDER THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT TO CONFORM TO LONG-STANDING FEDERAL POLICY.

(a) In General- Section 1303 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), as amended by section 10104(c) of such Act, is amended–
(1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (e) and (f), respectively;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) of subsection (b) as subsection (d) and transferring such subsection (d) after the subsection (c) inserted by paragraph (4) of this subsection with appropriate indentation;
(3) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
`(b) Special Rules Relating to Coverage of Abortion Services- Nothing in this Act (or any amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require any health plan to provide coverage of or access to abortion services or to allow the Secretary or any other Federal or non-Federal person or entity in implementing this Act (or amendment) to require coverage of or access to such services.’;
(4) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:

`(c) Limitation on Abortion Funding-
`(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
`(2) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE COVERAGE OR PLAN- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as–
`(A) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
`(B) such coverage or plan is not purchased using–
`(i) individual premium payments required for a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange towards which a credit is applied under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
`(ii) other non-Federal funds required to receive a Federal payment, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.
`(3) OPTION TO OFFER COVERAGE OR PLAN- Nothing in this subsection or section 1311(d)(2)(B)(i) shall restrict any non-Federal health insurance issuer offering a qualified health plan from offering separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as–
`(A) premiums for such separate coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;
`(B) administrative costs and all services offered through such coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and
`(C) any such non-Federal health insurance issuer that offers a qualified health plan through an Exchange that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection also offers a qualified health plan through the Exchange that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection.’;
(5) in subsection (e), as redesignated by paragraph (1)–
(A) in the heading, strike `Regarding Abortion’;
(B) in the heading of each of paragraphs (1) and (2), strike each place it appears `REGARDING ABORTION’; and
(C) in paragraph (1), insert `conscience protection, abortion, or’ after `State laws regarding’;
(6) in subsection (f), as redesignated by paragraph (1), by striking `Nothing’ and inserting `Subject to subsection (g), nothing’; and
(7) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(g) Nondiscrimination on Abortion-
`(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not–
`(A) subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination; or
`(B) require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination,
on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
`(2) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term `healthcare entity’ includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
`(3) ADMINISTRATION- The Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services is designated to receive complaints of discrimination based on this subsection, and coordinate the investigation of such complaints.’.
(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 1334(a)(6) of such Act is amended to read as follows:
`(6) COVERAGE CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL POLICY- In entering into contracts under this subsection, the Director shall ensure that no multi-State qualified health plan offered in an Exchange provides coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under subsection 1303(c) of this Act.’.

Compare that to the language in Stupak’s amendment, and one will see no substantive difference at all. That prompts the question: Why aren’t the so-called “pro-life Democrats” who voted for ObamaCare co-sponsoring this bill? It would restore the language for which they fought last November, and for which they threatened to vote against ObamaCare. It ends the reliance on an executive order of dubious legality and entirely based on the whim of a President who declared his fealty to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the nation.

Clearly, the term “pro-life Democrat” is mainly an oxymoron, with only a handful of notable exceptions as seen on the co-sponsor list of this bill. Stupak and most of his coalition care less about pro-life principles and more about political kowtowing. Voters in their districts need to find candidates that will support HR5111, and better yet, candidates that won’t lie in the first place about their pro-life principles.


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

Corrupt, lying Democrats? Alert the media!

Cicero43 on May 2, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Stupak was clearly paid off. I hope he can live with himself. Ugh..

Conservalicious on May 2, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Why aren’t the so-called “pro-life Democrats” who voted for ObamaCare co-sponsoring this bill?

Because it could be construed as an admission that the Executive Order was wholly inadequate. If the Executive order was enough, why have a new Bill? They must contend the new Bill is unnecessary or admit they folded like a cheap tent.

trubble on May 2, 2010 at 3:25 PM

LifeNews.com contacted Stupak’s office to determine why and has not received a response.

Stupak unmasked.

INC on May 2, 2010 at 3:26 PM

I think every pro-life individual should learn about this.

The last 90 days has seen the near extinction of two well known and recognizable brands:

Toyota
Pro-Life-Democrat

Apparently, neither can be trusted.

jeff_from_mpls on May 2, 2010 at 3:28 PM

Because it could be construed as an admission that the Executive Order was wholly inadequate. If the Executive order was enough, why have a new Bill? They must contend the new Bill is unnecessary or admit they folded like a cheap tent.

trubble on May 2, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Exactly, they put their full faith and confidence in that executive order.

fourdeucer on May 2, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Maybe Obama can use an executive order to cosponsor this bill…

ninjapirate on May 2, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Stupak was clearly paid off. I hope he can live with himself. Ugh..

Conservalicious on May 2, 2010 at 3:25 PM

I hope he can’t.

Tommy_G on May 2, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Are you suggesting that Stupak and his Pro-Life Dem buddies weren’t really serious about preventing abortions? That they just use abortion as a vote getting scheme? Is that what you’re saying.

Surely that can’t be true.

SlaveDog on May 2, 2010 at 3:39 PM

Never trust anyone who has perfect hair.

percysunshine on May 2, 2010 at 3:40 PM

Right to Life
I believe in the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Paramount is life. From conception to death, all human life must be considered sacred and must be protected.

Dr. Dan Benishek- running for congress in Stupaks district.

fourdeucer on May 2, 2010 at 3:41 PM

The Democrats are the masters of deception in service of advancing their overall agenda.

And this example is the prime example of why the Republican agenda over the last 30 years is getting rolled inch by inch.

Republicans are children trying to play and adults game.

rickyricardo on May 2, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Ah, the Abortocrat Party.

Dismember unborn children, elevate murderers, thieves, drug dealers and rapists to the level of heroes, legislate racial bigotry and force Americans to transfer their hard-earned income to criminals who are in this country illegally.

Democrats – dismantling America brick by brick.

NoDonkey on May 2, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Stupak was clearly paid off. I hope he can live with himself. Ugh..

Conservalicious on May 2, 2010 at 3:25 PM

There are only two reasons Stupidack offered resistance based on abortion. To fool his constituents and to get some of the payoffs other holdouts got. He was never pro-life personally. Unfortunately he can live with himself. The man has no morals.

cobrakai99 on May 2, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Congressional ethics — the oxymoron standard against which all other oxymorons are measured.

Tolerance of politicians lying to us should be set to zero.

GnuBreed on May 2, 2010 at 3:56 PM

57 co-sponsors

One for each state in Obama’s world….

Branch Rickey on May 2, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Most ethical Congress, evah! And don’t you forget it!

GarandFan on May 2, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Me I’d feel loads better about the dirty socialist perversion of health cares if this passed.

happyfeet on May 2, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Making a deal with the most abortion supporting president in history who supports partial birth abortions to not finance abortions with federal tax money is insane. Stupidak was exposed as a lying, cowardly traitor the minute he sold out. The only person he could have possibly fooled was himself.

volsense on May 2, 2010 at 4:08 PM

GarandFan On May2,2010 at 4:06 PM

Don’t forget the TRANSPARENT part too. Peloser takes insanity to a entire new level

volsense on May 2, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Stupak needs a golden parachute from this administration since his political career is toast.

neobadger on May 2, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Because it could be construed as an admission that the Executive Order was wholly inadequate. If the Executive order was enough, why have a new Bill? They must contend the new Bill is unnecessary or admit they folded like a cheap tent.

trubble on May 2, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Bingo.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 2, 2010 at 4:22 PM

“Clearly, the term “pro-life Democrat” is mainly an oxymoron…”

How could you run for a dem seat without dead babies in your wake? It’d be like a gangster high on the food chain without teardrop tats on his cheek.

ericdijon on May 2, 2010 at 4:31 PM

I pray that strong prolifers run for these seats and send these guys packing.

paul1149 on May 2, 2010 at 4:33 PM

I don’t know how Stupak will ever be able to live with himself now that he has become known as the ultimate back stabber and enabler of the killing of the unborn because he is complicit now in every abortion…his family will have to live with this big stain on ther names from here on out…

We also need to see which lobbying firm gives him his multi million dollar job after he retires… which is his 30 pieces of silver…

I really hope this amendment passes…

CCRWM on May 2, 2010 at 4:47 PM

That prompts the question: Why aren’t the so-called “pro-life Democrats” who voted for ObamaCare co-sponsoring this bill?

“so called” pretty much sums it up. There is no such thing as a “Blue Dog” or pro life Democrat.The last Blue Dog Democrats switched to the Republican Party more then a decade ago, when the Democrats were kicked out of the south.

Rode Werk on May 2, 2010 at 4:47 PM

I received a hand written note from Dr. Benishek’s wife thanking me for my political donation to her husband’s campaign. I sent a check even before their website was operational for donations. This couple is the real deal, very unassuming. We need to support his candidacy to capture Stupak’s seat in the new Congress.

karenhasfreedom on May 2, 2010 at 4:53 PM

100 seats flip or bust

tjexcite on May 2, 2010 at 5:11 PM

NO Vember

jukin on May 2, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Voters in their districts need to find candidates that will support HR5111, and better yet, candidates that won’t lie in the first place about their pro-life principles.

Sadly, Stupak scammed most of us here in his district during his purportedly principled stance against the ObamaCare legislation before it successfully passed and became law. And now that his true weaselly nature has been exposed we’re to be denied the pleasure of voting him out of office since, coward that he is, he’s decided to “retire” rather than run for reelection.

But there’s a silver lining to this particular cloud. What that whole episode revealed was that there are no true “Blue Dog Democrats”. Any such supposedly ‘conservative’ Democrats simply don’t exist as they have -always-, when push came to shove, voted in enough numbers to get the currently considered legislation passed according to the Democrat’s agenda, while allowing just enough of them to vote “No” to save their seats in districts where they might otherwise be in jeopardy if they didn’t represent their conservative base.

It’s a sham and a scam of the most egregious order that Stupak and Company highlighted most effectively for the voters to remember and consider when these phony Democrat conservatives next come up for reelection.

KendraWilder on May 2, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Ed Morrissey: Voters in their districts need to find candidates that will support HR5111, and better yet, candidates that won’t lie in the first place about their pro-life principles.”

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!!

Lockstein13 on May 2, 2010 at 5:40 PM

And we’re suppose to believe the latest spin that God is a Democrat. yeah right.

redridinghood on May 2, 2010 at 5:45 PM

Follow the $$$ after retirement. We will never know because of the lamestream media even though it will be blatantly in front of our eyes!

conmo on May 2, 2010 at 6:11 PM

The libs will lie and say that’s not what the language in a bill says when we know it does, ie, death panels, cost increases, abortion funding, etc. There is no difference between a liberal and a mod dem. They all vote together, always.

Kissmygrits on May 2, 2010 at 6:41 PM

Yep, Stupak and crew sold their souls on this one.
As many note above, follow the money after Stupack retires.

Wolf Howling on May 2, 2010 at 6:50 PM

Stupak was clearly paid off. I hope he can live with himself. Ugh..

Conservalicious on May 2, 2010 at 3:25 PM

After the next time he is up for re-election, he will have plenty of time to reflect on his actions, because he won’t be working in Congress anymore.

pilamaye on May 2, 2010 at 7:02 PM

There is nothing like being a fake to manipulate folks with their own heartfelt religion and life affirming philosophy.

Why do these people run for office when they don’t seem to believe in, or stand for, anything?

My stupidity. I guess we all know why they do it.

IlikedAUH2O on May 2, 2010 at 7:10 PM

KendraWilder on May 2, 2010 at 5:23 PM

You sound like a very nice and reasonable person. Please help correct the Stupak damage inflicted on the rest of us on NO Vember 2nd

Thank you…

Khun Joe on May 2, 2010 at 7:34 PM

KendraWilder on May 2, 2010 at 5:23 PM

You sound like a very nice and reasonable person. Please help correct the Stupak damage inflicted on the rest of us on NO Vember 2nd…

Thank you…

Khun Joe on May 2, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Absolutely can guarantee that my vote and at least three others will be going to try to undo the damage. It won’t help us here in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which is literally dying now economically. But it will help the country at large, which is a positive start. :)

KendraWilder on May 2, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Why am I not surprised by this?

JohnBG on May 2, 2010 at 8:33 PM

Stupak, I hope you sleep well and got gobs of money for your vote. You knew from the get go what you were doing and sold you hinny and your vote out. Your family should be so proud or you. I have a feeling you will get yours when you have the final after death thing. You are but a few of many just like you, slugs!
L

letget on May 2, 2010 at 8:49 PM

“Pro-life” was a convenient leverage to use to get what they wanted for their districts. Nothing more.

ButterflyDragon on May 2, 2010 at 8:51 PM

Democrats: the party of DEATH.
1. Passionate about a women’s right to kill her unborn child.
2. Passionate about a husband’s right to kill his invalid wife (Terry Schiavo anyone?)
3. Passionate about children’s right to kill their parents if they are no longer useful (Oregon)

… and equually passionate about the rights of convicted murderers (who take innocent life) to live.

Democrat Party: Passionate about killing the innocent and saving the guilty!

jerseyman on May 2, 2010 at 8:59 PM

And we’re suppose to believe the latest spin that God is a Democrat.

Gaia is a Democrat and that’s the only god Democrats are beholded to.

False idols, mythical figures, fairies and elves.

NoDonkey on May 2, 2010 at 9:20 PM

Corrupt, lying Democrats? Alert the media!

FIFY

Noel on May 2, 2010 at 9:28 PM

who gives a shit. stop trying to control other people\’s uteruses.

Seven Seas on May 2, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Ed, these new HA ads are ANNOYING.. .Can you Slap ‘Em, please?

leftnomore on May 3, 2010 at 2:49 AM

False idols, mythical figures, fairies and elves.

NoDonkey on May 2, 2010 at 9:20 PM

Oh, and don’t forget the worship of Bill Maher and Jon Stewart. Libs love to exclaim, “He’s my MAN! He’s cool as &%^$^#&%&!!!” (insert as many foul words as possible there–libs love their curse words.)

Grace_is_sufficient on May 3, 2010 at 5:55 AM

Why aren’t the so-called “pro-life Democrats” who voted for ObamaCare co-sponsoring this bill?

Why, because the dems are in for the fight of their life, and they need money, lots of money, and pro-abortion and friends have a lot of money.
They could care less about killing baby’s…they need votes.

right2bright on May 3, 2010 at 8:17 AM

There ain’t no such thing
As a Pro-Life Democrat.
There never has been.

Haiku Guy on May 3, 2010 at 8:46 AM