Not all of them, mind you. But, at least, he’s accused the U.S. bishops and the National Right to Life Committee of hypocrisy.
According to The Daily Caller:
“The [National] Right to Life and the bishops, in 2007 when George Bush signed the executive order on embryonic stem cell research, they all applauded the executive order,” Stupak said in an interview with The Daily Caller.
“The Democratic Congress passed [a bill] saying we’ll do embryonic stem cell research. Bush vetoed it in 2007. That same day he issued an executive order saying we will not do it, and all these groups applauded that he protected life,” Stupak said.
“So now President Obama’s going to sign an executive order protecting life and everyone’s condemning it. The hypocrisy is great,” he said.
To my mind, the addle-headedness of his comments is great.
President Bush, for all his flaws, vetoed a Bad Bill and then issued an executive order to further protect unborn life.
What Stupak did was vote for a Bad Bill with only a hope that the next pro-abort president (or even Obama himself, or the courts) won’t void the executive order he got in exchange for his vote.
Whatever else, Mr. Stupak does not seem gifted in finding good analogies to back up his charges of hypocrisy.
But perhaps he’s just expressing things badly (and offensively).
He goes on to suggest that had he not accepted the offer of the executive order that Mrs. Pelosi would have had the votes for the Bad Bill anyway, and it would have been passed without the executive order to blunt its effects on the unborn.
If so, his flippage on the issue would have been reasonable and praiseworthy (though his accusations of hypocrisy would not).
But is he right?
The bill passed with three votes to spare, 219-to-212.
But the Stupak gang provided more than four votes. Had they not voted for the Bad Bill, on its face it would not have passed.
Could Pelosi have had enough representatives who voted “no” who would have voted “yes” if Stupak hadn’t cut his deal to pass the Bad Bill anyway?
It’s possible, but it doesn’t strike me as plausible (else why make the deal with Stupak’s group?).
On the other hand, Pelosi could have just lied to Stupak about how many votes she had, and Stupak may have been stupid enough to believe her.
The Daily Caller is also running a piece titled Bart Stupak is either not very smart or he’s not very honest.
These certainly seem reasonable hypotheses, particularly given this video from November 2009 (CHT: Fr. Z):
So what do you think? Is Stupak’s reasoning good, bad, both? And what do you make of his charges of hypocrisy?
Just who is the hypocrite, now?
What a jerk. I must admit, though, I don’t understand the idea of Obama’s executive order cancelling the bill’s provision for funding for abortion. Since when do we live in a country where the president can override the law whenever he wants to?
I wrote an email to Stupak’s Bishop calling for his barring from Communion. I also wrote to Stupak and told him I was going to contribute to his opponenet this year. Do likewise.
Does anyone know what this bill requires in the way of insurance coverage?
I’m really baffled by that. I now we’re all required to have insurance, but it’s also the case that there’s all sorts of policies. Some cover darned near everything, some darned near nothing.
I’m assuming that this bill specifies what is covered. Does it?
Assuming that it does that, my problem with it is that I’m required to pool up in a pool that covers things I’d rather not be required. Abortion is one, but so is contraception. Yes, that’s partially on moral grounds, but partially also because I really don’t think that I should have to pay for other folks to contracept. Using a libertarian argument, why should I pay for others to avoid the consequences of sex? I didn’t ask them to have sex, and it shouldn’t be my financial problem.
I feel that way about being compelled to help pay, at some point, for the effects of things like smoking too. I might be willing to voluntarily join in, and probably already have, in a policy that covers illnesses stemming from bad lifestyle choices, but I don’t like the idea of being compelled to do so.
I think Rep. Stupak will be out of a job come November.
Since when do we live in a country where the president can override the law whenever he wants to?
Since yesterday, apparently. Isn’t progress wonderful?
Could someone explain to me what is wrong with Stupak’s excutive order in the Reform Bill?
I’m not arguing that it’s good. But i’m hearing alot of people saying that his executive order means squat.
Also, what is included in his executive order with respects to abortion?
If anyone has a link to a site that explains this stuff it would be greatly appreciated.
You Catholics are alright.
Thanks, Ichabod’s Cranium. We love you too!
AFAIK, Kathleen Parker does a good job of summing up why the executive order isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on:
Or, to put it another way…
So the president can’t overrule the law with an executive order. That’s more or less what I thought, though I’m not one of the political science majors Parker refers to.
Two words for those satisfied with an Executive Order: Mexico City.
It seems to me (I may be wrong) that Stupak has managed to piss off just about everybody in this country. By prolonging the process, he angered folks who wanted the health care bill to pass. By changing his mind in the end, he angered the folks who didn’t want the bill to pass.
Here is how Mr. Stupid Stupak managed to make me mad:
He lies with his pie hole about how he CARES about babies, yada, yada, yada and yet he votes for a bill in which each taxpayer is going to be paying for abortions. And then goes out with his buddies and parties!
It is estimated that there will be 30% more abortions in this country and now they will be paid for by us.
What a great legacy from stupid stupak. I will give every penny I have to his opponent.
Stupid stupak sold his soul (if he even had one) for a worthless piece of paper from a POTUS who lies with pretty much every breath he takes.
The problem with Stupak (and many bishops, priests, religious and theologians) is that they do not know the difference between double effect and material cooperation, consequently mistaking the latter for the former on a regular basis.