Bart Stupak: Just another Americanist.

Sometimes, when there’s a lot of buzz about a topic I normally might cover, I don’t cover it because I figure it’s well-discussed. Other times, I accumulate a lot of articles, and get overwhelmed. This time, I’ve accumulated the links, but rather than try to juggle fifty windows, reading articlse for exact quotes and precise hyperlinks as I go, I’m going to just link them all at the bottom and run through.

The usual suspects have been making much hay of the Bart Stupak situation. He’s the real pro-lifer, they’re telling us. This health care thing has exposed Republican hypocrisy (and, to some extent, I agree with that). They’re reiterating the Obama Catholic mantra that it’s OK to fund abortions if the net result is to “reduce abortions.”

It would be one thing if only the “political pro-lifers” were upset by Stupaks’ compromise, but the USCCB has expressed dismay as well (of course, the Usual Suspects are claiming the USCCB is nothing more than a politicla arm of the Republican Party, that is about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard). 

Interestingly enough, as you may have heard, the House and Senate have already rammed through some “revisions” of Sunday’s health care bill.  Already?  So, when everyone’s distracted reeling from the *first* Bill, they introduce *another* one.  Also, when they tell us we’re nuts for thinking they’ll just pass another bill to overturn Obama’s executive order, they’ve demonstrated what a real possibility that is.

Some Republicans tried to put some riders iin to see how much the Demonocrats were willing to compromise.  For example: a measure to deny Viagra coverage to anyone who’s a convicted sex offender was laughed off the Senate floor.

Most notably, though, apropos to Bart Stupak, Sen. Ben Nelson, the alleged pro-life Democrat from Nebraska, sold out unborn babies for increased Medicaid money to Nebraska.   Guess what?  He had his thirty pieces of silver taken away from him in this second health bill.

We still don’t know what Stupak got, but appearenttly he’s gotten death threats from both sides.  Now, obviously, I don’t support death threats, and I don’t see how anyone claiming to be pro-life can make them.  Yet Stupak had talked previously of getting death threats from pro-aborts and never quoted them.  Now he’s saying he’s getting pro-life death threats but actually quoting them.  Then there’s the whole question of what consitutes a “death threat” versus a conditinoal statement.  For example, when P.Z. Myers threatened to steal a Host and desecrate It, various Catholics sent him messages saying how they’d defend the Host if he came into their churcches and tried it, and he tried to say these were “death threats.”  There was also the case a long time ago of a Christian girl in a public school who told her principal he was going to Hell because he was a sinner, and this was taken as a “death threat.”

Anyway, I’m not justifying their behavior; just pointing out that when we’re dealing with words, things are open to interpretation.  Actual acts of viiolence are *not* open to interpretation.  And despite what we keep hearing from the MSM about the dangers of the “Tea Party” movement (referred to disparagingly by the Left, including many Catholics, as “teabaggers”), the only act of violence so far in this potential catalyst for a new Civil War has been done by a Liberal, reaffirming what I said the other day: some peace-loving gun control supporting Obama supporter shot up the offices of Republican Representative Eric Cantor from Virginia.  Go figure.  And, as I always point out, the media and FBI told us the DC Sniper was going to be an “Angry White Male” Christian Conservative Racist NRA member.  . . . . .

Oh, and this bill that is actually pro-life and is not going to pay for abortions, according to Catholic Progressives (TM), has been praised by Planned Parenthood.  Last I checked, Planned Parenthood declares it a horrible loss any time there’s a law passed that requires abortuaries follow basic safety standards.  And this bill that Progressive Catholics, and the USCCB, have assured us is not socialist has been praised by none other than Fidel Castro (I thought he was dead).

So, back to Stupak, who will go down in history with Quisling, and Spooner, and wooden shoes called sabots for a new word based upon his name.  The newest verb in the English language is to “Stupak”–to claim to support a cause and then turn around at the very last minute.

Stupak has wasted no time in doing this.  While he supposedly has a 30 year pro-life voting record, recent events have caused that record to be brought under scrutiny.  For example, Jill Stanek reports that Stupak has actually voted in support of Planned Parenthood funding.  He justified that support by saying that Planned Parenthood doesn’t do abortions . . . in his district.  This wonderful pro-life Catholic also said Planned Parenthood provides many good services.  You mean like contraception, Mr. Stupak?  Or how about inappropriate forms of “sex education”?

Then he took it up a notch by declaring himself a firm advocate of the Kennedy Doctrine:

<blockquote>”The Pope and the Catholic faith does not control Catholic legislators. We must vote reflective of our districts and our beliefs. When I vote pro-life, it happens to be my own personal belief, also my district’s beliefs and the nation’s. As the polls show 61 percent of the American people believe we should not use public funds to pay for abortion. I agree with that.”</blockquote>

So, in other words, Stupak has openly proclaimed the heresy of Americanism.;_ylt=Aqynnyh4m6OwwTL0Z_eq57pWr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTJsbmNtb3Y4BGFzc2V0A21jY2xhdGNoeS8yMDEwMDMyNC8zNDYwMTQyBHBvcwMyMwRzZWMDeW5fcGFnaW5hdGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNoZWFsdGhiaWxsaW4-;_ylt=AmP33qRpvR1bbG10Q_CzG.BWr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTNkY2I3ZW52BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzI2L3VzX2hvdXNlX3JvbGxjYWxsX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBHBvcwM0MwRzZWMDeW5fcGFnaW5hdGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNyb2xsY2FsbGhvdXM-


5 responses to “Bart Stupak: Just another Americanist.

  1. An interesting misdiagnosis.

    Mr Stupak is a politician working in the world of politics. It’s a prudential matter as to whether insurance reform, as constituted in this bill, is pro-life or not.

    Some pro-lifers think it is, some don’t. It would seem that the pro-life movement, pro- and anti-insurance pieces both, need to locate either legislative or public relations or independent charitable initiatives that address directly the real situation in this country. And that is, that women have the freedom to choose aborting an unborn child.

    My sense is that the latter two options are the only reasonable alternatives, but there’s no reason to believe they couldn’t be as highly effective, as, say, the federal support of insurance for pregnant women who now might not have it.

  2. Bart Stupak is my congress-critter…. I am disappointed not only in his support for the ‘hc’ bill not only because of the abortion possibilities, but because of the insurance mandate. As a very poor person, it adds insult to injury that I now have to pay a fine because I can’t afford a health insurance policy. Maybe I’ll have to give up doctor visits and anti-diabetes meds in order to pay for my fine!

    • Nissa, see that’s one of the things I have been trying to figure out. I don’t mind the idea of taxing those who could afford insurance but choose not to buy it. Such individuals should be those who make $2000 more per month than cost-of-living for their family size, since that’s how much it can cost to buy self-pay insurance for a family.

      My I ask about your state’s Medicaid limits?

  3. Oddly enough, the Knights of Columbus (Mr. Stupak is a 3rd Degree Knight) has been circulating an e-mail with the *exact wording* of the EO as proof that prayer and the action of Knights in the general public can and do change minds.

    Oh, and I found out that if a woman wants it, Planned Parenthood does prenatal and adoption services…..

  4. I’m actually willing to give Stupak the benefit of the doubt on the E.O. I’m seeing both sides of that one.

    However, my point was about his statement of Kennedy Doctrine (which is actually the Carroll Doctrine).

    Yes, I know they do prenatal and adoption, but that’s not their primary agenda, and there are plenty of charities that do those.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s