Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Sorry, Bart Stupak -- the feds already subsidize abortion

By Matt Miller

Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak (D) threatened Thursday to block health care reform (again) because it might allow federal money to subsidize abortion. Which has Democratic leaders cooking up Rube Goldberg-like schemes to supposedly assure that any abortions would be funded only out of the premium dollars people paid themselves for coverage in new insurance exchanges, not via any federal subsidy. But this entire debate is ridiculous, because the feds already subsidize abortions massively, via the giant tax subsidy for employer-provided care. Today the feds devote at least $250 billion a year to subsidizing employer-based coverage, a subsidy that skews incentives horribly (but which big business and big labor wouldn’t let the politicians touch this year). A Guttmacher Institute study says that 87 percent of typical employer plans cover abortion, and a Kaiser study found that 46 percent of covered workers had abortion coverage.

“I want to see health care,” Stupak told ABC Thursday morning. “But we're not going to bypass some principles and beliefs that we feel strongly about." Oh, really? If Stupak means what he says, he’d be taking on the much larger, long-standing federal subsidy for insurance policies that cover abortion, not the tiny, theoretical one on which he’s focused. My guess is his devotion to a higher principle -- political self-preservation -- means he’ll ignore this inconvenient fact. But who knows? If Stupak tries to mobilize abortion foes against the tax exclusion for employer provided health care, we may get serious incentives for cost control into the health bill yet.

By Matt Miller  | March 4, 2010; 4:05 PM ET
Categories:  Miller  | Tags:  Matt Miller  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What that RNC presentation didn't say
Next: Paul Ryan's GOP budget plan -- smoke and mirrors, too?

Comments

Yes, yes, yes. Exactly.

Posted by: jeffwacker | March 4, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Make the fetus buy its own health insurance.

Posted by: RMarigny | March 4, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Bart Stupid, more like it

Posted by: EdSantaFe | March 4, 2010 4:35 PM | Report abuse

LONG

LIVE

ABORTION!

Posted by: kinkysr | March 4, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

to kinkysr: yep your mama should have felt like that and aborted your sorry %^%^&21$#@. She probably regrets it now... You'll get the point one day when a lightning bolt hits you.

Posted by: JUNGLEJIM123 | March 4, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

What the feds subsidize now is not the discussion.The issue is sticking with the Stupak Amendment from the House legislation.There are many pro life Democrats who don`t want the more lenient abortion language in the Senate bill.They also know they can`t trust the Senate or White House to change anything if they back the Senate version of Obamacare and hope to change it through "Reconciliation".

Posted by: bowspray | March 4, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

What principle is he standing on? The principle that abortion is murder? Well what would you call it if a person gets sick and dies because he voted against giving them affordable health care?

Posted by: AverageJane | March 4, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

I guess it doesn't matter to Mr. Stupid that it does not do a BABY good if the mother has no insurance to pay for PRENATAL care or for the birth OR for the health of the baby once it is born.

DUH -- How do we elect such stupid people

Posted by: racerdoc | March 4, 2010 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Will Stupak and others be tricked again?! No amendment l can transform a criminal scam like Obamacare into an honest bill. Any "amendments" will be just tricks, like the Stupak amendment, to force us to swallow the scam.

The Stupak amendment was just another trick used by Obama and his Comrades to pass the Obamacare SCAM through the House. Tricked by the amendment, some Catholics (not all) actually believed the lies of Obama and his accomplices regarding abortion coverage! Tricked by the amendment, they failed to look at the evil behind the whole Obamacare scam.

Informed Americans, however, understand that, if Obama gets his way, Obamacare will FORCE us to pay for abortions, infanticide (late-term abortion) and probably euthanasia, in spite of Obama’s lies and tricks like the Stupak amendment.

Lies do not change Obama's pro-abortion and pro-infanticide (late-term abortion) stand, nor the aberrant stands of Obama's Health Care Czar Ezekiel Emanuel and Science Czar John Holdren.

Lies do not change the FACT that we are broke and Obamacare will further destroy our economy, our future and the future of our children and grandchildren.

Lies do not change the FACT that Obamacare is another scam to enslave us.

We expect our representatives to defend us from the Marxist Obamacare scam. We expect them to be courageous defend us in spite of the lies, manipulacion, intimidation, coercion, BRIBES, and fraud of Obama and his comrades.

Posted by: AntonioSosa | March 4, 2010 7:20 PM | Report abuse

I sort of wonder, just how many miscarraiges occur every year in poor women who get pregnant, can't afford even basic doctors visits, and end up sick, and miscarry.

Stupack's amendment isn't concerned with preventing abortions, just with not having to pay for them. Or for medical care that would have prevented them.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 4, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Stupak is either lying about what his driving principal is or he is basing his principal on lies made up from the truthful bible.

Posted by: hoser3 | March 4, 2010 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Miller is exactly right that if we can get rid of "the tax exclusion for employer provided health care, we may get serious incentives for cost control." But it isn't included in this HC bill because the Democrats were not the least bit interested in seriously attempting to control costs which is the biggest single problem that we face with health care in America.
They did a lousy job on this legislation.

If Stupak et al are another group that will join with those economists and Republicans who have argued for this approach, as McCain did in the election (which was ridiculed by Obama and the Democrats,) we can begin to put together a coalition that can actually DO something positive to reform health care in America.

That's why the current bill should go down to defeat. We have to get serious about the REAL problems if we're going to get something done. Otherwise we're just pissing money away.

Posted by: parkbench | March 4, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I do not believe that GOD can forgive anybody than supports the killing of his babies...
and for those of you that support these people...
it's the same as if you committed the act itself...
shame on all of you...

Posted by: DwightCollins | March 4, 2010 7:28 PM | Report abuse

I'm not an absolutist against abortion, but I do not think it should become just another form of birth control for the lazy (I doubt the "uninformed" argument) as is becoming the case around the world.

All of this really comes down to personal choice.

My problem is why should someone else with a different personal view pay for my or your personal choices when there are means of avoiding the need for abortions (rape and life of mother cases aside)

This would be a good place to use charities or volunteers. Those that support help educate and/or pay. The problem is solved.

Posted by: sally62 | March 4, 2010 7:43 PM | Report abuse

Just because it's already subsidized, doesn't mean we should reinforce it with a new health care law. Do you think that just because it's already subsidized that people who think abortion is MURDER should just lie down and accept it? I don't think so.

Posted by: kroverstreet | March 4, 2010 8:40 PM | Report abuse

I am against abortion. I think it is wrong. But I also think that the rich can always afford it and the poor Mom ( often black) who has way too many children suffer.
Why are these self righteous men so up tight about abortion and yet our last administration sent at least 5000 men to their deaths and 3000 or so damaged for life in an unjustified war? They killed thousands of babies, children, raped and maimed young women and sent young men to their deaths in a war that was a lie to begin with.
Where is the outrage?
The killing just has to stop!!!!!!

Posted by: donnajorobinson | March 4, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Over 40 million people have been killed by abortion since Roe v Wade.
Hitler over 6 million
Stalin over 40 million
Mao over 70 million
They say you can tell a lot about a person by the company they keep.

Posted by: krankyman | March 4, 2010 9:26 PM | Report abuse

We ought to get rid of all subsidized abortion funding and provide free eye and dental plans for everyone instead, something we can all use.

Posted by: droberts57 | March 4, 2010 9:37 PM | Report abuse

IT IS VERY TRUE THAT WE NOW SUBSIDIZE ABORTIONS BY ALLOWING EMPLOYERS TO DEDUCT THEIR EMPLOYEES HEALTH PREMIUMS. THUS, THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD USED BY MR. STUPAK ET AL AS I HAVE NOT HEARD ANY OF THEM PROPOSE TO MAKE THE EMPLOYER DEDUCTION CONTINGENT ON BLOCKING ABORTION COVERAGE ON SUCH POLICIES.
SUPPOSE THAT AN EMPLOYER COULD NOT DEDUCT? HOW MANY WOULD CONTINUE TO PAY THE PREMIUMS UNLESS THEY COULD DEDUCT THEM. THE QUESTION: HOW MANY UNION EMPLOYEES WOULD RAISE HELL IF THEY COULD NOT HAVE ABORTION COVERAGE? I WOULD THINK THAT MOST EMPLOYEES IN MICHIGAN WOULD PROTEST.

Posted by: allen99 | March 4, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

We ought to get rid of all subsidized abortion funding and provide free eye and dental plans for everyone instead, something we can all use.

Posted by: droberts57 | March 4, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Disclaimer: I am totally pro-choice.

But this misguided two paragraphs are insulting to stupack... and obviously intended to get a rise out of the idiots out there.

Stupack wants to control govt spending on abortion.... he wants to make sure we don't put a law into effect forcing a contribution to an "abortion" fund... which is EXACTLY what the current proposal legislates.

Author, and those supporting, are happy to gloss over the OBVIOUS.

Posted by: docwhocuts | March 4, 2010 9:42 PM | Report abuse

"Over 40 million people have been killed by abortion since Roe v Wade."

----------

Clearly, those women should be promptly executed.

Posted by: Freestinker | March 4, 2010 9:53 PM | Report abuse

Miller's argument is ridiculous. Suppose for instance that a woman takes a bus to an abortion clinic. Are we to conclude that the city is subsidizing abortion by providing buses? Any service whatever can be used in support of abortion, or, for that matter in support of tax evasion. That does not mean that providing such service amounts to support for abortion (or tax evasion).

If Stupak wants to fight certain spcific forms of federal funding for abortion, he has every right to do so without also having to fight a million other battles which involve abortion in some remote way.

Posted by: rohitcuny | March 4, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Women who procure abortions (and men who encourage them to do so or demand that they do so) already unknowingly support my pro-life stance.

They do so by declining to use medical insurance to pay for abortions even when they have it available.

I can't know for sure but I suspect that they do this because they regard themselves as doing something shameful, something of which they prefer not to leave a paper trail.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | March 4, 2010 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Wow, could it be that my fellow Michigander, Congressman Bart Stupak (I call him Bart Stupid for short) might actually help us achieve a goal I'm in favor of---taxing employer provided health care insurance? Employer provided health insurance SHOULD be taxed! For one thing, that tax would provide billions of dollars that could be used to help pay for Obama's healthcare plan. It would also make people more conscious of what they're spending on healthcare insurance, which means they might use it more judiciously. And it's inherently unfair for the government to subsidize employer provided health insurance when those of us who are self-employed, unemployed, or working for a company that doesn't provide health insurance to have to pay for our health insurance (our ridiculously overpriced individual health insurance!)out of after tax money. Oh, and here in beautiful Michigan, Blue Cross/Blue Shield has hiked my individual insurance policy by 34% in the last year. And I see they would like to hike our rates again, by over 50% this time! What's wrong with this picture?

Posted by: SuzanneM5 | March 4, 2010 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Just kill your baby, nothing should stand in the way of your career, sex life, or happiness.

Posted by: shukov | March 4, 2010 11:20 PM | Report abuse

The Taliban-wannabee Stupak needs to be sent back to his cave. He belongs far away from public office, permanently.

Posted by: revbookburn | March 5, 2010 12:08 AM | Report abuse

Of course abortion is horrible, and I don't believe that I have read an opposing opinion.

However, it is a legal medical procedure. We don't all agree on how our tax dollars are used, but we don't, aside from abortion, seek exceptions to how they are used. Pacifists cannot ask that their taxes are not used for the DoD, etc.

For anti-abortion people to claim that their convictions are either more profound or more sincere than the convictions of other tax-payers who cannot agree with 100% of how it's spent, is arrogant and condescending at best.

Posted by: montypalmer2 | March 5, 2010 12:08 AM | Report abuse

I agree with the commenter above: "Miller's argument is ridiculous. Suppose for instance that a woman takes a bus to an abortion clinic. Are we to conclude that the city is subsidizing abortion by providing buses?"

People opposed to abortion have a legitimate right to object to their tax money used to perform abortions. They can be told "tough luck" but Stupak is saying it's not tough luck. And he is standing on that principle.
If the opposite side believes the opposite then they can stand on their principles and demand that public funds be used. But does a mother's right to privacy which is what Roe V Wade is based on entitle her to use public funds for her abortion?

Posted by: VAALEX | March 5, 2010 12:20 AM | Report abuse


Über-feminizts will love this anti-abortion campaign whose main slogan is "Hitler introduced abortion in Poland in 1943"....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/7354284/Hitler-abortion-poster-sparks-anger-in-Poland.html

Have fun Galzzzzz!

Posted by: RudeIsraeli | March 5, 2010 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Does the health care bill cover hysterectomy? (There are times when this
is medically indicated/required for a woman's health, so it ought to be
covered.)

Does the health care bill cover vasectomy? (Let's get the subject by the
8@||$...)

Do the government-funded private schemes cover these? (Probably a high
proportion do.)

Posted by: brindafella | March 5, 2010 1:27 AM | Report abuse

The big irony is that by trying to perpetuate his congressional career, Stupak has pissed off the party establishment that he needs to get re-elected, and hard, basically guaranteeing he won't get re-elected.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | March 5, 2010 2:13 AM | Report abuse

Ignoring convenient facts...isn’t that what politicians do? Growing up in Michigan in the late 1950s as a Catholic who feared telling my parents, I became pregnant in high school and aborted the child myself. Without a coat hanger, but with methods that would make you cringe. And then went on to abort two others, one with a nurse-midwife in Detroit who used unspeakable methods that almost resulted in death and a third with a d&c doctor in Tijuana. I went on to have two wonderful children and a grandchild. Had I known better, or had there not been such humiliation about out-of-wedlock pregnancies at the time, I might now have five children and even more grandchildren. I am at peace with God, but never forget for a minute the callowness and desperation I felt. I don't favor using taxpayer dollars to support methods citizens don't support. But I am equally against using taxpayer dollars to fund wars that have not been declared, or, for that matter, state-sanctioned murder in the criminal justice system. You folks need to think this through, and you have an obligation to create public policy that is consistent with your values. If you are against murder, you should not support any law that makes it possible.

Posted by: patr2 | March 5, 2010 2:39 AM | Report abuse

I need to restate this, because I may have left a misimpression.......Growing up Catholic in Michigan in the late 1950s, I became pregnant in my last month of high school when abortion was illegal, and, in fear of telling my parents, terminated the pregnancy...without a coat hanger, but with methods that would make you cringe. And then a few years later, while married to my high school sweetheart, but caring more about my college education and feeling incapable of being a mother, I aborted two others, one with a nurse-midwife in Detroit who used unspeakable methods that almost resulted in death and a third with a d&c doctor in Tijuana. A few years later I gave birth to two wonderful children and now have a grandchild.

Had I known better, or had there not been such humiliation about out-of-wedlock pregnancies at the time, I might now have five children and even more grandchildren. I have made my peace with God and am not vulnerable to public disregard, but will never forget for a minute the callowness and desperation I felt. While I believe that life begins at viability and not at insemination, taxpayer dollars should not be used to support methods citizens don't support. Nor should tax dollars fund wars that have not been declared, or, for that matter, state-sanctioned murder in the criminal justice system.

You folks who feel compelled to make the law of the land reflect your religious faith should think this through. You have an obligation to create public policy that is consistent with your values. If you are against murder, you should not support any law that makes it possible.

Posted by: patr2 | March 5, 2010 3:32 AM | Report abuse

There were 13 million (not very optional ones either) in China last year alone. They're paid for by American consumerism. Every time you shop at WalMart you kick in to pay for a government mandated abortion.

So basically, guys like Stupak are idiots who have a poor grasp of facts & a proclivity for magical thinking.

The entire "pro-life" movement is such a pile of hypocritical willfully ignorant angry jerks that seem too stupid to deal with the real world on a basis that reflects facts.

Posted by: Nymous | March 5, 2010 3:37 AM | Report abuse

Calling someone an idiot does not promote rethinking one's position.

Posted by: patr2 | March 5, 2010 4:12 AM | Report abuse

people here still want to make decisions based on an idiotic belief in this god thing, lmao, you dumb azz's, God, lol, so i guess you all believe in the tooth fairy and santa claus too...lololol

Posted by: davesharpe | March 5, 2010 4:38 AM | Report abuse

Bart must answer to his C Street masters, otherwise they get to paddle him. Or something.

Posted by: DontWannaMyPostID | March 5, 2010 6:00 AM | Report abuse

Stupak == Stupid?

Abortion Cost: $300, outpatient clinic

Live UNWANTED Birth: $30,000, to start, then could end up costing more than $10M or more to the taxpayer if the UNWANTED birth ends up in the legal system.

Do the math.

Posted by: FranknErnest | March 5, 2010 6:34 AM | Report abuse

Stupak is a member of the (federally tax-exempt) C-Street cult. According to the founders of the cult, its members are "chosen" by God and are not subject to the laws of man...

One of its founders is on record for saying that if a member of the cult raped a child, he would not be accountable because he is "chosen".

It tells all you need to know about Stupak and his ilk.

Posted by: Gatsby10 | March 5, 2010 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Great!! Doing the math (actually arithmetic) has demonstrated the solution... All we need to get healthcare costs under control is more abortion.

Posted by: hogman77 | March 5, 2010 7:01 AM | Report abuse

hogman77, that won't do it. Ya gotta not treat the old people, and let them die. Result, no more Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security outlay. That is the reason for the medical panel run by bureaucrats and the decrease in Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements.

Posted by: BeanerECMO | March 5, 2010 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Gatsby10, not to worry; all those supposed moderate dems will fold and vote for the bill like the cheap suits they are just as they did in the first go-round.

Posted by: BeanerECMO | March 5, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

This article fails logic 101.

The feds do not tax employer provided health care. How is the government not taking more of the money we earn the same as paying for something? Please help me, the liberal idiots are rotting out brains!

Posted by: mgochs | March 5, 2010 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Bart Stupak wants to block federal funding for a legal medical procedure that he personally opposes but this entire concept is absurd. I opposed the invasion of Iraq on moral grounds yet my tax dollars went to support this fiasco. And I understood that I, nor any one of my elected officials, have the right to a personal, individual veto of any and all federal expenditures one of us may oppose. Federal decision-making naturally results in many individuals paying taxes for things they oppose but the nation as a whole supports. Bart Stupak is arrogant, self-righteous and hypocritical because he would never respect this sort of moral objection from others on issues he himself supports. And it is typical of fervent anti-choice crusaders to ignore all other moral values, such as health care for those with pre-existing conditions (i.e., those in greatest need) to oppose a legal medical procedure. I think that Bart Stupak mainly likes being famous. You go, Bart.

Posted by: JoanJohnson1 | March 5, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

Republicans and GOP style Dems in Congress are always trying to make Brownie points with their Base by showing their convenient allegiance to the Pope on the issue of Woman's Choice(not war and the death penalty) and trashing Constitutional Rights of Women, Gays and any other minority that is handy.

While people in Michigan are starving for jobs, Stupak is running a SideShow.

Posted by: rtreff | March 5, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Krankyman / So everyone in government since Roe V Wade is an abetter of mass murder? Or just Obama? And AntonioSosa, perhaps you should be krankyman2, for you do whine a lot. You sound like you've been getting your 'news' from Glenn Beck. That stuff will make you crazy..oops, too late

Posted by: doc16 | March 5, 2010 8:18 AM | Report abuse

Well of course. We all know that all conservative opposition is cynical and all liberal support is based on principle.

At least that's what the partisan hacks at the Post seem to believe.

Posted by: bobmoses | March 5, 2010 8:22 AM | Report abuse

RE:Over 40 million people have been killed by abortion since Roe v Wade.
Hitler over 6 million
Stalin over 40 million
Mao over 70 million
*****
Apparently we have some catching up to do, as for Stupak, he's serving his last term up here in Michigan, he won't win re-election.

Posted by: bproulx45 | March 5, 2010 8:25 AM | Report abuse

RE:Lies do not change the FACT that Obamacare is another scam to enslave us.
*****

Kind of like Christianity.

Posted by: bproulx45 | March 5, 2010 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Wow this article's premise is a real stretch.

Posted by: flonzy3 | March 5, 2010 8:33 AM | Report abuse

The claim by Stupak, and the other 10 Democratic congressmen is simply untrue. The language in the Senate bill will not inject a new federal subsidy to pay for abortion. Stupak and his cronies see in the scramble to enact the health-reform legislation, a chance to make it more difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion, not to keep the status quo. They feel that they will get their way, as the rest of their party will want to get the bill passed and finally done. The constituents of these "democrats" need to let them know that denying health-care coverage to 46 million currently uninsured just so they can grand-stand is unacceptable.

Posted by: bienefes | March 5, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

Matt Miller says this:
"But this entire debate is ridiculous, because the feds already subsidize abortions massively, via the giant tax subsidy for employer-provided care."

Sorry Matt, NOT TAKING someone's money so people can spend it all as they see fit is a whole lot different than government TAKING peoples' money and spending it as the government sees fit.

Posted by: spamsux1 | March 5, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

http://www.Allbyer.com
Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Here are the most popular, most stylish and avantgarde shoes,handbags,Tshirts,jacket,Tracksuitw ect...NIKE SHOX,JORDAN SHOES 1-24,AF,DUNK,SB,PUMA ,R4,NZ,OZ,T1-TL3)$35HANDBGAS(COACH,L V, DG, ED HARDY)$35TSHIRTS (POLO ,ED HARDY, LACOSTE) $16 New to Hong Kong : Winter Dress--- NHL Jersey Woman $ 40 --- NFL Jersey $35--- NBA Jersey $ 34 --- MLB Jersey $ 35--- Jordan Six Ring_m $36 --- Air Yeezy_m $ 45--- T-Shirt_m $ 25 --- Jacket_m $ 36--- Hoody_m $ 50 --- Manicure Set $20 ... Company launched New Year carnival as long as the purchase of up to 200, both exquisite gift, surprise here, do not miss, welcome friends from all circles to come to order..,For details, please consult http://www.Allbyer.com

Posted by: ytrutrifyhjyioryuryteu | March 5, 2010 9:04 AM | Report abuse

.
according to Rachel Maddow last night, there was an agreement not to write new law or change policy on abortion in the current health care debate.
Then the Dems put a huge expansion of abortion funding in the reform bill, and Stupak objected.
Blame Stupak all you want for obstructionism, but he's only holding out for what Pelosi promised in the first place.
.

Posted by: BrianX9 | March 5, 2010 9:07 AM | Report abuse

It's the economy, Stupak.

Posted by: iowanic | March 5, 2010 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Democratic motto: Keep on killing those babies.


Posted by: Jerzy | March 5, 2010 9:17 AM | Report abuse

No Federal funds for Abortion! Oh, and let's restore Prohibition, slavery, public flogging, beheading, the ban on women voting, add a ban on women drivers, and add mandatory chapel on Sundays (even for Jews). Ship all undesirables to Honduras. Even if they are not from there. Since when is the Roman Catholic Church elected to run the U.S. Government? I would prefer there to be no reason for pregnancies to be terminated. But God, in His Wisdom, has seen fit to arrange for there to be good reason: rape, incest, life of the Mother, too much to drink on Saturday night. I do not want laws whose reason for being is an idea that originates in a church. To wit: "He who terminates a pregnancy violates the Will of God by sending a soul back to Him prematurely." Why not open a few human bodies and find for me the soul?

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | March 5, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

First as a 78 year old male, if I ever get pregnant I sure would like to have the abortion option. Or as my mother taught me at 4 years old, Mind Your Own Business (MYOB). There are a whole lot of human behavior I would like to change in other people, only they would like to change in me. Stand-off.

Where are our priorities? We give corporations free speech and deny women the right to control their own lives. Bankers get paid bonuses for crashing the economy and g'mnt gets the right to spy on its citizens?

We support a massive military that "Kills, baby, kills" and we won't spend a few bucks for poor women who may be screwed up, get pregnant and are forced into purgatory for the rest of their lives.

MYOB, Stupak. Stop being such a control freak.

Posted by: stanassc | March 5, 2010 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Some people always want to tell other people what they should do. Its the American way. We're free right? America is about freedom right? So why are we creating laws that tell an American woman what she can do with her body? Any laws on the books about what men can do with their body?

Okay, so this appears to be about keeping some under kind of control on women. I guess I haven't been told why women are such a problem? They're killers who must be kept in check? Is that what its about? I hear that its about not killing unborn children. Who's unborn children are they? Once they're born, who is responsible for their lives? Bart Stupak? James Dobson? Are those gentlemen going to step in and help ensure that the non-aborted babies will be fed, housed, educated, given the best we can provide? Uh, no, that's not going to happen. Anti-abortionism is anti-freedom, pure and simple and it is a burden on women. It takes two people, one of each sex to make a new human, where is the punishment for the male participant? He has rights but no responsibility, except to provide financially, a responsibility that many men totally avoid? Only the women are discriminated against? Who are we as a nation? What do we really believe? Insofar as I can see, the great statements of the declaration of independence and the constitution are meaningless. We say one thing and do another. We constantly discriminate against wide sections of our population and call it freedom. And so it goes.

Posted by: robertmerry | March 5, 2010 9:59 AM | Report abuse

RMarigny wrote: "Make the fetus buy its own health insurance."

--------------------------
--------------------------

Conservatives will do just that. Only it's called entrepreneurial capitalism. Their hypocrisy will charge the mother, who will then charge the fetus through trickle down voodoo.

Posted by: swatkins1 | March 5, 2010 10:06 AM | Report abuse

DwightCollins wrote "I do not believe that GOD can forgive anybody than supports the killing of his babies...
and for those of you that support these people...
it's the same as if you committed the act itself...
shame on all of you..."

-------------------------------
-------------------------------

Do you know this to be certain? Did God come down and tell you this? Please let us know....OK?

And there's something else I need to share with you, DwightCollins, did you hear about the RNC's little thingy they did the other day? You know, the thing where they are going to use fear and the word "Socialism" to get donations from the very rubes who are so scared of God? Did you hear anything about that? Anything at all? Does Rush Limbaugh talk about it? Fox news? Nothing? Hmmmmm.....Maybe they're just denying it, just like conservatives deny anything happened prior to January 20th, 2009.

What do you think, DwightCollins?

Posted by: swatkins1 | March 5, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Who farted?

Posted by: montana123 | March 5, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Stupid is as Stupak does. Stoopid Yooper.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | March 5, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Of fine-sounding talk they’ve no dearth.
I would probably find greater worth
In their clamor v. Roe
If they started to show
Some reverence for life after birth.

Posted by: jprfrog | March 5, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

ok sort of off topic but read yesterdays latimes and the question of violence in the streets, and why is it down. nearly legalized marijuana and legal safe abortions for 30 years. people have an opportunity to shape their lives create a better place for themselves, but stupak is the unknowing instrument, one tier of the republican strategy to control the hillbilly rabble, to persuade the dumbest members of society to vote consistently against their own self interest. promise the trailer trash crowd a place next to jesus in the afterlife and they willingly grant corporate america a blank check , wage slaves for life should be that crowds motto.

Posted by: trjohnson8890122 | March 5, 2010 10:48 AM | Report abuse

"If the opposite side believes the opposite then they can stand on their principles and demand that public funds be used. But does a mother's right to privacy which is what Roe V Wade is based on entitle her to use public funds for her abortion?"

Absolutely not. I am pro-life and not in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. but I'm not paying for someone who has found it inconvenient that they are pregnant (special cases excluded). Just because someone is unexpectedly pregnant does not mean that the taxpayers have to help them out of a situation they don't want to be in. I don't want to pay my $10,000 credit card bill, but I knew exactly what I was getting into when I made my purchases...and I don't expect anyone to bail me out of trouble.

Posted by: yam1 | March 5, 2010 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Stupak isn't standing on any principle, nor on fact.

The Hyde amendment applies to the HCR bills, the Senate language requires women to pay for their insurance policies in a convoluted two-check manner, requires insurance companies to segregate the so-called "private money abortion premium payments" from the regular insurance premiums.

Stupak is simply wrong.

I wonder why the most vehement abortion foes are men -- men who never get pregnant and never have abortions.

Posted by: jade_7243 | March 5, 2010 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Liberals simply cannot recognize a stand on principle.

This comes as a surprise to no one, as most liberals wouldn't even recognize a principle if it crawled up and bit them right in the reproductive rights.

I wish Mr. Stupak Godspeed in saving us from this abomination of a bill.

Posted by: etpietro | March 5, 2010 2:05 PM | Report abuse

the government funds dozens of things to which I am opposed on moral grounds.

Posted by: mikenimzo | March 5, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Just because it's already subsidized, doesn't mean we should reinforce it with a new health care law. Do you think that just because it's already subsidized that people who think abortion is MURDER should just lie down and accept it? I don't think so.

Posted by: kroverstreet

*************************************************************

Has there ever been a pro-life movement that boycotted their employer based coverage so long as it allowed abortion to be covered? If they object so strongly then Miller is right; why don't all these pro-lifer go shape the market?

Boycott your health coverage today so you don't subsidize murder!!

hypocrites........

Posted by: theobserver4 | March 5, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

I think that the gov't should repeal Roe Vs. Wade AND also make it illegal for a man to spill his seed anywhere but where god intended. I'm a guy by the way.

Let's see the literal loons scream no to that one. If you're not a woman STFU. If you are then don't get an abortion or provide ample support to another woman in a desperate situation.

Posted by: theobserver4 | March 5, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

I think we need many, many MORE Abortions. Let's start with the conservatives, the tea-bagging loons, the neo-cons, and everyone who thinks the Republicans have had a good idea in the last three decades.

Posted by: rurik | March 5, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

This argument is useless because those who don't already support the writer's view on abortion generally don't believe tax deductions are the same as government subsidies, since you're just taking less of someone else's money.

Posted by: msully25 | March 5, 2010 2:49 PM | Report abuse

With dems like Stupak, who needs republicans???
The man is a sellout, and a horrible excuse for a human being.
Stupak, tale Blanche Lincoln with you and jump in front of a train. It would make the world a better place.

Posted by: jeffc6578 | March 5, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Great...let's kill more babies using taxpayer's money, it's the American way!

Posted by: gman6 | March 5, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

As a guy that's firmly pro-choice, I've got no problem with curtailing government spending on abortion in the health care reform bill. That doesn't mean I would have written it in, but it's certainly not a sticking point. Does anyone anywhere truly support casual abortion? Honestly, they aren't that expensive and if you're having so many that it's becoming a real financial burden I would submit that the problem is with you, not with the government. There are still many options for women that are honestly too poor to pay for one. Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I'm ambivalent about abortion, and I don't think it's ridiculous for those opposed to it to be adamant that their tax dollars not be spent in that way. This is in no way an assault on the legality of abortion, in fact if passed it simply means that things will pretty much remain the same.

Posted by: djm7f | March 5, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Bart likes the attention a blue dog gets now that Ben Nelson has been nullified. But Bart being one of the last to know what's going on because he was too busy being not only a good C Streeter but also a mentor to the newbies, getting the good deal on housing, and claiming to know nothing about any of it (Who me? A C Streeter? I know not of what you speak. It's the code of Coburn) decides not to go all Homer and demand that all employer provided health insurance be banned for the good of humanity. What a guy!

Posted by: Patriot3 | March 5, 2010 4:43 PM | Report abuse

The abortion argument has folks on both sides who feel deeply and strongly, with integrity. I personally wish they would spend their time and money agreeing on birth control. But this argument should not keep all of us from funding health insurance, in some manner, for our citizens. As strongly as people feel about abortion, they should feel about their fellow man living in terror about becoming sick and having no resources. Canadians spend 8% per capita of the GNP and the US spend 16% and all Canadians are covered. Here is how they do it. There is a small cost to income taxes and sales tax above what we Americans pay. They have a single payer system in each province. Each province is in charge of its own health care system. The health care provided is basic, very basic, with Cadillac type additions available by buying supplimental insurances. There are many insurance companies which offer suppliments like dental, eye, etc. There are waits to gt a surgeon or doctor for things like hip replacemnts, but if you break your hip you can get a new one imediately. In other words, a triage system for non-urgent surgery and care.
Single payer system, choose your own doctor etc., purchaseable insurace over and above basic, some inconvenience and waiting but no caps, no denials, no increases, no hassle, no fear. Canadians grumble but love having it over what we have. Does the government determine what you can get? Yes, just as our insurance companies do, if you have insurance at all.Theirs cost less per capita and we could learn from them why.

Posted by: joyhogghwh | March 5, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I agree with Mr. Miller. It is a fact that many corporations and small businesses deduct their subscription to the Washington Post as a business expense; therefore, the government subsidizes the Post. And then the rest of us have to pay for business subscriptions because we have to pay higher taxes. Let's not even deal with all the direct federal subscription payments to the Post. So, in effect, we subsidize Mr. Miller's salary.

Idiot!

I say "Fire his incompetent, illogical back end."

Posted by: jpfann | March 5, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Stupak heaven: a woman from poverty (probably accompanied by an altar boy) forced to carry a pregnancy to term, then be his coerced sex slave, and prostitute for his fellow C Street Cult brothers.

Posted by: revbookburn | March 5, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Democracy's most serious flaw, so far as I can tell, is that the convenience of voters will trump principle every time the contest is joined.

Posted by: douglaslbarber | March 5, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

"As a guy that's firmly pro-choice, I've got no problem with curtailing government spending on abortion in the health care reform bill. That doesn't mean I would have written it in, but it's certainly not a sticking point. Does anyone anywhere truly support casual abortion? Honestly, they aren't that expensive and if you're having so many that it's becoming a real financial burden I would submit that the problem is with you, not with the government. There are still many options for women that are honestly too poor to pay for one. Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I'm ambivalent about abortion, and I don't think it's ridiculous for those opposed to it to be adamant that their tax dollars not be spent in that way. This is in no way an assault on the legality of abortion, in fact if passed it simply means that things will pretty much remain the same. Posted by: djm7f "

The problem with this line of thought is that the Government doesn't pay for casual abortions, and doesn't proximately pay for casual abortions, and probably doesn't reotely pay for casual abortions.

But if stopping the HCR occurs because it is possible that some government funds free up funds that permit funds to be used to pay for abortions, it will directly lead to the death of people who cannot afford treatment that most assuredly would have saved their lives. This definitely includes women who do not seek prenatal care because they can't afford it who therefore miscarry.

So to salve the tortured soul who worries that he might in some slight way permit an abortion we insure that pregnancies that would not have ended had the mother had health care end in the death of the foetus in a preventable miscarraige.

AND, where the Government pays for medical procedures that are controversial, experimental, or of dubious merit the Government certainly has the grounds to expect that a patient seeking such treatment recieve counselling on the alternatives thatmight have much better results.

If Federal funds to normal and customary health care were not so limited as Stupak and Hyde demand, it is quite likely that pro-life groups like Project Rachel would be in a position to help mothers who now have abortions, sans any government funding, because their "benefactors" can demand it is precondition to helping their "friend", or lover or whatever deal with a pregnancy that the mother is at a loss to deal with by herself.

I believe that the Hyde amendment encourages many more abortions than it prevents, and the Stupak additions will only worsen the problem.

And it might, in the process, torpedo national health care for another generation.

The Senate bill, sans Stupak, will prevent far more abortions than the House bill with Stupak, exactly because Stupak is in the house bill.

Posted by: ceflynline | March 5, 2010 11:43 PM | Report abuse

But they all want it, don't you see!

They oppose "abortion as a principle!".
But were they to agree to a small percentage of abortions "for the greater good", the same fetuses would be going into the dumpster. In the back of their minds, they admit that the fetuses being aborted are "Unwanted Babies in the
Making", Babies who will most likely grow into adults, raised with subsidized formula, diapers, medicade delivery, ($6,000 of taxpayer money,) CHIP insurance to age 25, (Google for this next number, Cost of raising a child)$250,000. to raise a child to adulthood and one who has only a 50% chance of completing high school and will most likely work his or her career in $12 to $14 per hour job before FICA witholding is taken out. Further, they will be minority, planting a respectable number of babies themselves, the average among the poorly educated is three (in or out of wedlock) and these individuals, not counting their kids, will be a net financial loss to the tax paying half of the citizenry of some half million dollars by the time they get past the
medicare years. Even today one part of the medicare program is being paid into by NO ONE, RICH OR POOR!

As Jack Nicholson said in "A Few Good Men, "You Can't Handle The Truth". The truth is, most would fight much harder for the right to life argument if the sacred to the Democrats abortion laws were not in fact, controlling the lower economic class which is primarily Black. A higher percentage of aborted fetuses
are black than any other ethnic group.
Am I wrong?

Posted by: PhillupSpace1 | March 6, 2010 3:18 AM | Report abuse

Will Stupak help Obama and their comrades FOOL people again?!! No amendment l can transform a criminal scam like Obamacare into an honest bill. Any "amendments" will be just tricks, like the Stupak amendment, to force us to swallow the scam.

The Stupak amendment was just another trick used by Obama and his Comrades to pass the Obamacare SCAM through the House. Tricked by the amendment, some Catholics (not all) actually believed the lies of Obama and his accomplices regarding abortion coverage! Tricked by the amendment, they failed to look at the evil behind the whole Obamacare scam.

Informed Americans, however, understand that, if Obama gets his way, Obamacare will FORCE us to pay for abortions, infanticide (late-term abortion) and probably euthanasia, in spite of Obama’s lies and tricks like the Stupak amendment.

Lies do not change Obama's pro-abortion and pro-infanticide (late-term abortion) stand, nor the aberrant stands of Obama's Health Care Czar Ezekiel Emanuel and Science Czar John Holdren.

Lies do not change the FACT that we are broke and Obamacare will further destroy our economy, our future and the future of our children and grandchildren.

Lies do not change the FACT that Obamacare is another scam to enslave us.

We expect our Church and our representatives to defend us from the whole Marxist Obamacare scam, not only the abortion part. We expect them to be courageous and defend us in spite of the lies, manipulacion, intimidation, coercion, BRIBES, and fraud of Obama and his comrades.

Posted by: AntonioSosa | March 6, 2010 11:38 AM | Report abuse

"When I leave Congress, I'm still going to have my integrity in place."

Stupak made that comment in the same article that mentioned that he lived in a C Street boardinghouse for 10 years until last January. The house, which is owned by a right-wing "Christian" group, charges so little in room and board as to be an insultingly obvious gift to "Christians" like Stupak. In essence, he illegally took about $8,400 in gifts each year from the organization. Yet another member of the moral majority that seems to forget that its difficult to hold up your head while taking a bribe.

Posted by: micost51 | March 11, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

"When I leave Congress, I'm still going to have my integrity in place."

Stupak made that comment in the same article that mentioned that he lived in The Family's C Street boardinghouse for 10 years until last January. The house charges so little in room and board as to be an insultingly obvious gift to "Christians" like Stupak. In essence, he illegally took about $8,400 in gifts from the organization each year. Yet another member of the moral majority that seems to forget that its difficult to hold uphour head while taking a bribe.

Posted by: micost51 | March 11, 2010 11:08 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company