Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Can Pro-Life Dems Be Trusted To Defend The Pro-Life Movement With Their Votes? Ans: No;No They Can't

    By Theblogprof, Section News
    Posted on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 07:40:24 AM EST
    Tags: abortion, Michigan, Stupak (all tags)

    I've said many times in my blog that there is no such thing as a conservative Democrat, just Democrats representing conservative districts. To do so, they have to pretend to defend certain issues important to a center-right majority in their districts. Being pro-life is one of those important issues. Case-in-point today is Michigan 1st District U.S. Representative Bart Stupak - Democrat. District 1 is about as far away from me as any district in Michigan. Stupak on the surface has some genuine pro-life credentials based on his voting record, including:
    • Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)    
    • Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)    
    • Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)    
    • Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)    
    • Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)    
    • Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)    
    • Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)    
    • Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)    
    • Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)    
    • Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)    
    • Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)    
    • Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)    
    • Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)    
    • Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)
    So he's all set now as a Representative in a center-right district, right? He'll defend the pro-life movement with every vote, right? Three words: Not. So. Fast. Sure Stupak talks a good game, going as far as admitting that Obama is not telling the truth about HR 3200 which in fact mandates public-funding of abortion. Here's Stupak recently on FoxNews saying what Joe Wilson was admonished for saying - that Obama is lying:

    Stupak is right, and talks a great game for the cameras. BUT there is troubling talk out of Stupak and other so-called pro-life Democrats. Away from the camera, Stupak's take changes significantly. From The Detroit News: Daily Kos-backed poll puts Rep. Stupak on the spot. Watch the language coming out of Stupak here:

    A poll commissioned by Daily Kos, the liberal political blog site, finds most likely voters in Rep. Bart Stupak 's district in northern Michigan would like to see a government-run option in the unfolding health care debate.

    Stupak, D-Menominee, a moderate Democrat, "doesn't oppose a public option," his spokeswoman, Michelle Begnoche , said. "No one issue will dictate his final vote. He will look at the bill in its totality when he makes his decision."

    Stupak came to the attention of Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas when the congressman voted against HR 3200, the main House bill, in the House Energy and Commerce Committee on July 31.

    Moulitsas picked Stupak and three other moderate Democrats for polling to try to show they'd face more trouble back home if they shy away from a public option -- the hot button issue that exploded in raucous town halls in Michigan and elsewhere during Congress' August break.

    Research 2000 polled 600 likely voters in Michigan's 1st Congressional District and found most -- 53 percent to 42 percent -- favor "creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans." The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

    "No one issue will dictate his final vote." For the true pro-lifer, abortion holds nothing short of veto power. Simple as that. Under no circumstances can a pro-life representative vote for a bill "on the totality" and ignore the huge expansion of abortion in the plan. Even more troubling was this article back in July from The Detroit Free Press poli-bites:

    U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak has his share of problems with the health care reform bill being tossed about on Capitol Hill, like some other middle-of-the road Democrats.

    One item on the man from Menominee's mind: abortion. Or, specifically, a conscience clause pointedly missing from the legislation which would ensure a medical practitioner's right not to provide certain kinds of services -- such as abortions -- if they conflict with his or her personal beliefs.

    It's not make-or-break to his support of the bill ultimately, he said. But he wants it considered.

    So there you have it. He would still vote on a lack-of-healthcare package that would include taxpayer-funded abortions, and the imposition of abortion in the medical profession regardless of what anyone's personal belief is. From a prior post of mine, I pointed this out:
    If the heath-care package currently being pushed by Obama is passed, the result will be 240,000 to 420,000 more abortions in the first year alone.
    So I ask you, what good is a liberal Democrat pretending to be middle-of-the-road since he serves in a right-of-center district? When push comes to shove, these supposedly reliable conservative votes on issues like abortion will fall apart like a cheap K-Mart picnic table. What good were all the reliable Stupack pro-life votes (you wonder how many of them he cast knowing that his vote didn't make a difference either way) I listed above? Compared to this legislation, they have all been for naught. It was an illusion. A mirage. A slight of hand. He pulled the wool over voters' eyes. You simple CANNOT TRUST THESE PEOPLE! Especially with the life of the unborn! There are no moderate or conservative Democrats. Only liberals that are nothing but wolves in sheep's clothing. Right to Life of Michigan must be kicking themselves right now. Maybe they can wake up and see the light that pro-life Democrats cannot be trusted!

    Stupak was one of several Democrats that ran for cover and wouldn't meet with constituents in townhalls. Instead, he had a telephone townhall, essentially a farce:

    Stupak also voted for the disastrous cap-and-trade legislation that he didn't read (did anyone when the vote came up?). It will be the largest tax increase in U.S. history. By far. Stupak also voted for the non-stimulus stimulus boondoggle that has been an abject failure and has done nothing other than burden this country and our children with debt. In addition, the stimulus bill funded a board to look into "comparative effectiveness." Essentially, comparative effectiveness measures medical treatments in dollar values versus the age of a patient. It is nothing short of a death panel for seniors and the very young, not to mention the unborn. Is Stupak even aware of what the heck he voted for here?

    < Getting Fired Up For The Mackinac Conference | "Tenther" smear has a problem - the posturing is bipartisan >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    Pro Life? Hmmm (none / 0) (#2)
    by sailingconservatively on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 08:25:48 AM EST
    There are numerous examples of "opportunist" pro life voting throughout the government (et al).  

    Our governor is pro life and a practicing Catholic, right?  The Knights of Columbus endorsed her!  

    Andy Dillon is pro life and a practicing Catholic, all star track and field alum from Catholic Central(got a nice head shot on the wall of fame in the hall way) and was endorsed by Michigan Right to Life, right?  Shall I continue?

    The voting done in the house and senate is done base upon the election calendar.  If a seat is up for grabs, an appeasement vote is granted to the candidate for their well being.  Bart Stupak has had this afforded to him many times.  If there are enough votes to win the day, those candidates that are in potential jeopardy are allowed to vote with the "populous" as an affectation of solidarity.  

    If you are pro life or pro no garbage into the state or pro gun or pro whatever, that is what they ran on and were elected by we the people as  to their vote(s).  

    Character matters and absolute power corrupts absolutely.   Caveat emptor...

    Love the UP reference! (none / 0) (#3)
    by sailingconservatively on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 08:29:54 AM EST
    Calumetees, what a riot!   (Does Nancy P. actually have a sceptre?)

    I'm not into a one issue demagogue (none / 0) (#5)
    by maidintheus on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 09:15:49 AM EST
    and resent the tactics of those who exploit individual issues.

    Take the pro-last-choice-left-on-the-table types. It amazes me when there is such an insistence on having more acceptance that there's much resorting to faux science. There's a difference in a proven fact and an opinion. M.D.s, well educated people, et al, will resort to the strangest things in order to co-enable their bias. It annoys me when people can't just own their...ideology and resort to twisting and hype.  This shows manipulation, indoctrination, and an ulterior motive.

    This type of thing has grown from desensitizing towards the embryo and fetus to even several years of age after birth.

    Why the lack of just owning ones ideology, hmmm?    

    No Favors (none / 0) (#7)
    by Rougman on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 10:24:35 AM EST
    The right-to-life groups have done Michigan and conservatives no favors in its past endorsements of Bart Stupak.  Bart has made the good votes thus far on abortion, and I suppose we might as well enjoy the one good thing about that ugly baby in the murky bathwater as long as we have to.  

    The sad thing is, however, that Bart's name has been misassociated by primarily one-issue conservative voters with having overall conservative values and voting record.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    When we (finally) had a good conservative and electable candidate opposing Bart in the last election, that name association cost him big time.  His opponent was also pro-life.  

    Bart sort of likes his lifetime job in the House and he isn't about to give it up any time soon.  He will be getting huge endorsements until the end of his days regardless of which side of the mouth he is talking from.

    Just a thought on viruses/dis-ease. (none / 0) (#12)
    by maidintheus on Fri Sep 25, 2009 at 02:43:02 PM EST
    Like most virus, a vaccine targeting one is debatable. A strong host system isn't a debatable solution.

    One is the symptom of another, of another, of another...

    What to do...

    I'm suspecting that the hope for a cure in one area is more like treating the symptom.

    It's hard to believe that cough medicine is only treating the symptom and that efforts in strengthening overall health is the way to being disease free, though it has no quick fix.

    Spirit, soul, body...all of them. A targeted vaccination doesn't seem a likely solution.

    We have need of patience, and to patience virtue...  

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search