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:
Stupak is so determined to eliminate the remote chance some woman might figure out a way to get a few federal bucks for an abortion that he’s willing to sacrifice the lives of about 45,000 Americans a year to keep it from happening. And, those 45,000 deaths annually aren’t remote possibilities, they’re a certainty.
Washington — (Reuters) – Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year — one every 12 minutes — in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.
. . .Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.
Nearly every political action in D.C. has an equal and opposite reaction. Rep. Diana Degette, D-Colo., co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, appeared on the Rachel Maddow show last night, showing how that works in this case.
Congressman Stupak is completely wrong. The House version that we passed before — or the one we considered before his amendment — had a compromise that we reached in my committee which kept the status quo in place, because we want this to be a health care bill, not an abortion bill.
. . .what Congressman Stupak wants to do is to ban people who want to buy insurance with their own private money in these insurance exchanges from doing so. And that would be a vast expansion of a restriction on a woman’s right to chose, and we can’t agree to that.
After Congressman Stupak passed his amendment in the House version, which said nobody could buy insurance in these exchanges with their own private dollars if it included abortion coverage, I circulated a letter and the letter simply said to Speaker Pelosi, “We are not going to vote for a final version of the bill if it restricts a woman’s right to choose beyond current law.” Forty people signed that letter. I’ve gone back and checked with all those 40 people, plus additional people, probably about 10 or 15 more, who say if a final bill restricts a woman’s right to choose beyond current law, we’re not going to vote for the bill.
So, it’s clear Stupak isn’t satisfied with maintaining the status quo ensured by the Hyde Amendment, which for years has ruled out federal funding for abortions. His real mission is moving the ball down the field, making it harder for women to exercise their fundamental human right of choosing what’s done with, and within, their own bodies.
And to succeed in that mission, Stupak, defender of life, is willing to sacrifice health care reform for 30 million Americans who now have none, and with that, the lives of 45,000 people a year.
In announcing her intention to run, Saltonstall issued a statement, saying:
“I believe that he has a right to his personal, religious views, but to deprive his constituents of needed health care reform because of those views is reprehensible.”
Absolutely right. Go, Saltonstall!
Three cheers for Connie Saltonstall, it’s amazing how Stupak could keep getting elected so far north and west of the Mason Dixon Line. Hope he gets his behind paddled.
Just wonder how much money Stupid got from the health insurance industry?
If he got his way and I know he won’t (his amendment has nothing to do with budget and was taken out) only wealthy women would be able to have an abortion.
Stupak is also mired up to his eyeballs in the C Street house (aka The Family, The Fellowship). This organization started in the 1930s when racist, Nazi and Big Business groups started working together behind a “Christian” smokescreen.
I hope Connie Saltonstall kicks his butt.
Holte, you’re right. the more we get to know him, the more Stupak seems like a deep-South Republican.
Demeur, no matter what the law says or what public policy is, affluent, sophisticated women always have access to discreet, safe abortions. They’re called a “D&C.” When abortions are made illegal or nearly impossible for poor, unsophisticated women to get from safe, ethical medical sources, they go to butchers, with sometimes fatal consequences. Another ironic twist on “right to life.”
Tom, what is it they say, “Bird brains of a feather. . .”?
Stupak is grandstanding, at best. That stuff got compromised on 8 months ago.
The democratic senatorial fund or some such shit called me yesterday – the woman wanted to argue with me. I told her that when the democrats started acting like they have the majority, then I’ll consider donating again. I wouldn’t donate to a general fund, anyway, because money goes to asshats like Stupak.
If only your feedback would get back to those who really need to hear it, Bee. Maybe if enough people react that way, it will.
he’s willing to sacrifice the lives of about 45,000 Americans a year to keep it from happening. And, those 45,000 deaths annually aren’t remote possibilities, they’re a certainty.
Your skepticism meter seems to be broken, SW. Other studies have contradicted this one, i.e. the mortality rate is the same for those post and prior the medicare age.
You should know that population mortality is very primarily a matter of basic public health issues. Individual intervention has less of an effect.
I suspect the confounding factors are so extensive that we probably will not see ANY reduction in these supposed deaths. People die anyway, and the conservation of social momentum kicks in on the other cases.
RSF, I get the impression you tossed your skepticism meter after deciding Fox News, Limbaugh, et al tell you all you need to know.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn those “other studies” were the handiwork of the Lewin Group and similarly suspect sources. See:
The Lewin Group: Cited Often, Owned by UnitedHealth
The notion another 30 million Americans get reliable access to routine medical care, and there’s no improvement in the mortality rate of the formerly uninsured, doesn’t pass the common sense test.
I don’t buy it that teabaggers are just a bunch of disgruntled voters acting on their own. I don’t buy it that the Lewin Group does objective studies. And I don’t buy it that being able to see a doctor when ill or injured does nothing for a person’s likelihood of living longer.
Nothing wrong with my skeptcisim, RSF.
I won’t buy right wing hype if you will quit buying left wing hype.
When I see exact figures such as “45,000″ posted, I get a little suspicious. At best one could quote a range of numbers.
Denigration of US health care is a bit overdone.
The notion another 30 million Americans get reliable access to routine medical care, and there’s no improvement in the mortality rate of the formerly uninsured, doesn’t pass the common sense test.
Let’s not abuse the notion of common sense. Many of these uninsured are young people whose mortality is not connected to health care. Some of these uninsured actively avoid insurance and the health care system, and will continue to do so under Obamacare.
We also have to factor in the unintended consequences, such as a possibly worsening atmosphere for doctors under Obamacare which will lead to more leaving the profession, thus causing a shortage and possibly aggravating mortality rates.
I think we should lay down a marker now. Come back here after a few years under Obamacare and see if such mortality rates have improved. I suspect we will see no change.