Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., an anti-abortion crusader whose disregard for facts, eagerness to obstruct and anything-to-win tactics are on par with the average Republican, is getting a Democratic primary challenger.
Connie Saltonstall of Charlevoix, a former teacher and Charlevoix County commissioner, plans to run against Stupak this fall for the Michigan First Congressional District seat he’s held for 17 years.
Stupak presents himself as a staunch defender of the sanctity of life, but he’s spent the past year threatening to kill health care reform because, he insists, the legislation would provide federal funding for abortions.
In reality, neither the House nor Senate bill would fund abortions, and by killing the bill, Stupak and his dozen or so anti-abortion zealots will ensure the needless pain, suffering and deaths of many already-born Americans.
But is Stupak right — that the Senate bill directly subsidizes abortions? The answer appears to be no.
For starters, let’s look at the pages that Stupak cited to Stephanopoulos. From pages 2,071-2,072: “If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i)” — i.e., abortion — “the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to [health reform's government-funding mechanisms] for purposes of paying for such services.
As Slate’s Timothy Noah, who fact-checked Stupak last week, writes, “That seems pretty straightforward. No government funding for abortions.”
Pretty straightforward, that is, to anyone who’s not dense as a fence post, dismissive of facts, intent on grandstanding and OK with death-dealing side effects.
Stupak would have us believe he holds life as something precious that shouldn’t be pre-empted by abortions of convenience. We’re with him on that. But here’s where we part company:
4 comments
are mired in a messy divorce. According to papers filed in Los Angeles superior court, the McCourts — between 2004 and 2009 — collected income totaling $108 million. According to those same court papers, on that $108 million, the multimillionaire McCourts did not pay a single dime in either California or U.S. taxes.
This would be a substantial and controversial change to a policy that has been successful for two decades. It would also present yet another challenge to our military at a time of already tremendous stress and strain. Our men and women in uniform are fighting two wars, guarding the frontlines against a global terrorist enemy, serving and sacrificing on battlefields far from home, and working to rebuild and reform the force after more than eight years of conflict. At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy.
