Lets, Not, Make a Deal

No one seems to know where Stupak’s head it is at from moment to moment. A facebook friend of mine just sent me a twitter from CNN that reads:

Urgent — Rep. Stupak to CNN producer Lesa Jansen: “I’m still a no…There is no deal yet. Its a work in progress.”

Any “deal” that is acceptable to the radical pro-abortion bloc of Democrats that have threatened to vote “no” on the bill if substantial pro-life guarantees are included is not good enough.

If Stupak agrees to this absurd idea of an executive order, he will set back the cause of pro-life Democrats and disappoint the millions of pro-life Americans who, many for the first time ever, really believed that a pro-life Democrat could accomplish something in Washington.

Update: It’s 1:10 here in CA, and I just heard it from Stupak’s mouth on CSPAN – he’s made the deal. Obamacare will pass. May God have mercy on our souls!

12 Responses to Lets, Not, Make a Deal

  1. http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/white-house-statement-on-abortion-compromise.php

    And there it is. A deal. And the people who acted like it is all over abortion and were pretend friends with Stupak will show their true colors now.

  2. Anthony says:

    Was there any doubt?

    I don’t mean that lightly, either. I would have been SHOCKED if one or two representatives had held firm and brought the entire thing down. There’s simply no way any politician would hold against that kind of pressure and still hope to be a politician come November. They would be abandoned by their own party and no ‘conservatives’ would cross lines to vote for them in the fall. They’d be done.

    These guys want to be politicians more than they want to do the right thing. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: in this country, if you want to do right by America you must be prepared to have a short career.

    I don’t expect any ‘deal’ made to actually be taken seriously in practical terms. I suppose if the Republicans won in November they could try to repeal it…. HA!

    Bring on the lawsuits and nullification! Its time to get Jeffersonian!

  3. And what are their “true colors”, Henry? — That they supported Stupak insofar as Stupak stood his ground on abortion?

    Personally, I think the Bishops were correct in asserting that an executive orders was NOT the way to go.

    Stupak saw otherwise — so understandably there will be those who will disagree with, and be disappointed in, his actions.

  4. RL says:

    There are a great many valid reasons to oppose this legislation, the abortion issue being just one (albeit the most critical). If the language of the executive order truly satisfies the concerns regarding abortion and conscience, then Stupak (who supported the bill otherwise) is justified in voting for it, I suppose, and should still be lauded. The problem I have with such a “fix”, is that Obama himself can undo it at anytime, or any other president can unilaterally undo it. Prudence would dictate that it will happen. Look at the history of executive orders concerning abortion, a pro-life president institutes the Mexico City policy first thing, then pro-aborts undo it first thing. Doesn’t sound like a wise compromise to me. Still, I’ll give Stupak kudos for standing up to the death machine of his party and not caving or selling out to a bribe like some senators. Then again, since it’s the Senate bill that he’s agreeing to, he in effect is signing off on the unethical behavior of the Senate Democrats.

    The next couple days should be interesting, if not stomach turning. Then the legal challenges will begin in earnest.

  5. Christopher

    I already have seen people demanding Stupak’s head.

  6. Joe Hargrave says:


    Stupak may not have given into a “bribe” – but heck, THAT would have been more comprehensible than settling for this ridiculous executive order, which guarantees absolutely nothing.

  7. Joe Hargrave says:

    As for my “true colors”, I’ve never hidden them.

    A long time ago I said I was opposed to Obamacare, and that my support for Stupak stemmed from one thing only: that his success in getting his preferred language into the health care bill would simultaneously mean that about 40 rabidly pro-abortion House Dems would then oppose it and kill it.

    That’s gone now. Any “deal” that is acceptable to the rabid pro-aborts ought to be unacceptable for pro-lifers.

  8. Sydney Carton says:

    Henry must think it more important to be friends with someone who betrays innocent life than to stand for innocent life. What, are you paling around with Judas as well?

  9. Tito Edwards says:

    We here at TAC put our faith before our politics.

    It’s a novel concept that’s been around since the Resurrection.

  10. RL says:

    Joe, I agree that the executive order solution is in reality not a solution, as outlined above. I’m afraid it will come back to haunt Stupak and the rest of us. If it does, Stupak can be faulted for being naive or a bit of a sellout, but the real blame will be with whoever undoes the executive order. Just like the real blame for such awful legislation that was built to perpetuate abortion lies on the Dems in charge and their supporters.

  11. Tito Edwards says:

    For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life?

    –Holy Gospel of Saint Matthew 16:26

  12. RL says:

    Just saw the latest post here at TAC about how an executive order can’t hold up legally. This is bad, bad, bad.

%d bloggers like this: