[spamkillerf]

A GOP pick-up for sure.

[pooncophy]

Now, some conservatives say he jettisoned his principles (even though Obama did have an executive order),

Because an EO in this instance is worth as much as a roll of Charmin in as much as it can not change a law passed by Congress.

[QQ9ktYrV]

I guess most anti-abortion groups aren't satisfied with an anti-abortion democrat.

Are there any left in Congress?

[BoBoMasterDesign]

He's a dirtbag because he had principles, Oerdin?

He's a dirt bag because he lied. The bill already outlawed abortion but he tried to build up his street cred with conservative voters in his district by deliberately lying about the bill. Lying is what made him a dirt bag. To bad for him his lies back fired and he ended up pissing off more voters then he gained with his grandstanding.

[CGECngjA]

Are there any left in Congress?

Some

[Cuccuccaltefe]

It doesn't particularly change the law;

We agree. If we accept Stupak's original arguement that the Senate bill allowed for abortion funding, the EO didn't change one thing wrt his objection then. If a president can't strike portions of bills he dislikes (line item veto), I fail to see the Constitutional arguement that would pass muster with the Courts that allows him to add bits to laws. It's also Congress that controls the funding of this law.

[hereiamguy]

I'm still confused about when he said what. I was under the impression that his rabble-rousing caused the anti-abortion part of the bill. I've never heard this "he lied about the abortion part" before... and I read alot of news.

I don't trust Oerdin even a little, perhaps someone can confirm/link something?

[BrodiKennedy]

Before his amendment?

Yep, and he actually didn't amend anything. Rachael Maddow quoted the exact part which said no federal funds could be used to pay for or subsidize abortions. Stupack claimed that wasn't true but after he was proven wrong he demanded that no private insurance company be allowed to offer abortion coverage if they were part of the health insurance exchange; in other words he didn't even want people to be able to buy reproductive coverage as part of their health insurance even with their own money. That would have be a major new ban on abortion access so it got shot down. He settle for Obama issuing a Presidential order restating the existing no federal funding for abortions even though the bill itself also already repeated that same law.

Stupak spent months though claiming the bill funded abortions and it was a total lie. Stupak knew he was in a conservative district and that he wasn't popular so he used his lies to try to make himself more popular among conservatives. He helped whip conservatives into a frenzy and that's why they turned on him when he agreed to vote for the bill. He played with fire when he started lying.

[Eagevawax]

he demanded that no private insurance company be allowed to offer abortion coverage if they were part of the health insurance exchange

Are you really this stupid? Guess who gets to be part of health insurance exchanges... that's right, people who can't afford insurance who get GOVERNMENT STIPENDS for insurance. So government money is used to pay for abortion medical coverage.

[w3QHxwNb]

I'd actually like to see case law in which the Courts have upheld the President witholding abortion funding in opposition to a law passed by Congress allowing such funding.

It is quite obvious that when Congress is silent on an issue and the President decides to not fund X, it does not run afoul of the executive's prorogative. Justice Jackson's concurrance in Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer which has been cited a great deal more than the majority opinion in that case is a good place to start.

Like I stated earlier, the Mexico City Policy is an example of this.

[xanaxonlinexanax]

Obama issuing a Presidential order restating the existing no federal funding for abortions even though the bill itself also already repeated that same law.
I'm calling BS. There is no way Obama signed a repetitive EO just because someone in congress was talking crap. Presidents don't issue meaningless EOs just because someone in congress makes stuff up.

That you would believe that some guy lying in congress can force the president to issue meaningless EOs is pretty fkd up; you might want to check and see if you're retarded.

[MoreEndotte]

Obama's EO basically just restated the Hyde Amendment which has been Federal policy for 20 years.

Also, you should check to see if you're retarded if you think Stupak wasn't caught lying his ass off in attempt to posture for a tough election. Check the facts. Everything I have said here is true. Stupak lied his ass off and Obama's EO pretty much just restated the Hyde Amendment which has been around for 20 years + and which was already in the bill before Stupak went on his lying spree.

[SpeavaJap]

Obama probably wanted it in both the law and in an executive order just to be sure.

Obama didn't want either and instead it was a compromise designed to help Stupak save face. He lied himself into a corner and couldn't change his vote without some sort of face saving device so Obama offered him a meaningless restatement of decades old Federal policy which Stupak could try to hold up as a tiny shield to cover his hypocrisy and lies.

[freeprescriptionplanrrx]

How come the government could subsidize private insurance that covered abortion before the EO and now it cannot?



Presidents don't sign EOs just because a lone congressman invents something. I'm not buying that at all.

[theonsushv]

How come the government could subsidize private insurance that covered abortion before the EO and now it cannot?

It does. There was no change.

The entire point of this arguement is that accepting Stupak's original arguement as valid, Congress wasn't silent on the issue and allowed for abortion funding. Making the EO moot. Hell if we accept Oerdin's arguement that the Senate bill already banned abortion funding, the EO is still moot. It was an attempt to let Stupak save face with his constituents which backfired for him.

Exactly right.

[cheapphenonline]

It does. There was no change.

No, it doesn't. Because of the EO, private insurance companies must have a separate insurance package that does not include abortion and only those packages can be subsidized under the bill. That is the result of Stupak. Before Stupak, the bill would have subsidized insurance packages that included abortion coverage, circumventing Hyde.

[xsexymasterix]

DD is actually right that the Hyde Amendment has to be renewed every year. There is always potential that it doesn't pass.

OK, then I guess that can be said to be a change. An EO continues until with drawn so there would be no need to renew the law each year.

[CedssypeEdids]

As for Stupak:

"Life is difficult. It's even more difficult when you're Stupak."

[Nidsstese]

^^

[JoZertekAdv]

Clarifying for everyone who thinks Stupak is a turncoat: he gave a press conference and apparently said that by the time he flipped the dems already had the votes, so he cut the best deal that he could.