Snappy newsletters. Simple Facebook sharing. Spirited comments. Sweet features are waiting… GET THEM NOW!

Democrats Ought to Thank Stupak

Congressman brings the party in line with the public on abortion

By Nick McMaster,  Newser Staff

Posted Nov 11, 2009 1:40 PM CST

(Newser) – Liberal Democrats are angry at Bart Stupak for forcing an amendment restricting abortion into the House’s health care bill. But one day, they may view the unassuming congressman as a savior of health care reform. Polls show the American public is evenly split on abortion, and most don’t want government health care to pay for it. Stupak’s amendment not only brings a “note of reality into the Democratic echo chamber”—it divides conservative opponents of health care reform, writes David Gibson.

With a Stupak-esque amendment present in the Senate bill, those who oppose reform because of abortion are neutralized or, “as in the case of the Catholic bishops—brought on board as allies,” writes Gibson at Politics Daily. Democratic leaders widened their congressional majorities in recent years by courting more conservative candidates. If they allow liberal activists to scuttle health care reform over abortion, or ignore the Bart Stupaks among them, those candidates will lose the ability to be competitive, costing the Dems both a shot at health care and control of Congress.

In this 2008 file photo, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., speaks during a hearing on Capitol Hill.
In this 2008 file photo, Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., speaks during a hearing on Capitol Hill.
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
To report an error on this story, notify our editors.
A snapshot of the day's best news stories.
 
COMMENTS
Showing 3 of 24 comments
MarkFL
Nov 13, 2009 3:11 AM CST
The fact that there are republitards who oppose health care because they hate LEGAL abortions shows how ideologically insane they are. And since when did Catholic Bishops have a say in the health care debate?
mehrheit
Nov 12, 2009 12:43 PM CST
And switching to gun nut mode: The politicians say that this amendment only restricts abortions, but it could easily be extended to restrict access to abortifactants, such as RU-486, or maybe even Plan B. The language of the amendment doesn't specify surgical abortion.
mehrheit
Nov 12, 2009 12:36 PM CST
@Fondue, Rocket is referring to "government subsidized health coverage" which is not the same as the government plan. It's the "my employer offers insurance but I can't afford to buy it" subsidy, which would benefit mostly the working poor. **** And to answer your question, there was no loophole worth noting. The abortions paid for by insurance almost always involve the health of the mother or viability of the fetus. Most plans simply won't pay for abortion otherwise (because it's considered *elective*). This will only affect people who would get a later-term abortion, 2nd trimester, to avoid serious health complications. Stupak-Pitts does NOT grant an exception to protect the health of the mother, regardless of the risk to her future well-being. The viability of the fetus is also irrelevant. The standard applied is "danger of death" of the woman. Things like paralysis don't qualify. **** In other words, it restricts the ability of low and middle-income Americans to obtain reasonable reproductive health care.

More Newser Stories

Health Care Reform Hinges on House Abortion Vote

Where Are the Adults in DC?

Weiner's the Only Dem in Health Brawl

Democrats, Brace for GOP's Gloating

What GOP Will Do With a House Majority


NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS
Other Sites We Like:   24/7 Wall St.   |   Betty Confidential   |   BuzzFeed   |   Cracked   |   Fark   |   Timelines   |   The Frisky   |   Geek Sugar   |   NewsOne