.jpg "Tony Petersen")
On Saturday, Nov. 7, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, with 220 ayes and 215 nays. With 39 Democrats voting against and Louisiana Republican Joe Cao, the lone GOPer crossing the aisle, Democrats could finally celebrate a legislative victory three years after wresting control of the Congress from Republicans and one year after taking back the presidency as well.
But it was an amendment to the health care bill passed mere hours earlier that created a stir.
Dubbed the Stupak Amendment, named for Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, the amendment prohibits the use of federal funds to, the amendment says, “pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case … that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.â€Â
This has triggered yet another debate on that oft-contentious issue — abortion.
Catholics, throwing their support behind Barack Obama this past year after backing George W. Bush over John Kerry in 2004, are beginning to regret their decision. In a recent Politico article, religion and politics expert from the University of Akron John Green said, “It could be harder for the Democrats to keep those Catholic voters they gained and they may put some of their [congressional] members at risk.â€Â
On the other side, Eleanor Clift in Newsweek claimed that “both parties abandon women’s rights,â€Â as a recent article of hers was titled.
The president, in the meantime, has his foot in both camps, as he has so often done during his tenure. In a September speech to Congress over health care, he said this: “One more misunderstanding I want to clear up — under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.â€Â
Barack Obama̢۪s record as a senator tells a different story. His voting record received a grade of A+ from both the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He also supported the gruesome practice of partial-birth abortion, in which a baby has a sharp object jammed into the back of its head and has a vacuum tube literally suck the baby̢۪s brains out.
So expect nothing but waffling on this issue from Obama, who has no principles except the principle that popularity is important above all else. The issue is now left to the Senate, where South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham pronounced the health care bill in its entirety as “dead on arrival.â€Â
Regardless, the culture war has begun anew. The morality of abortion has stepped back into the public spotlight and is unlikely to leave it anytime soon (think of it as the Carrie Prejean of political issues).
And Democratic politicians are going to be left with one choice – either support the Stupak Amendment as the only way they get their prized legislation passed, or listen to their far-left base and not compromise on this controversial issue.
While this writer would have been one of the nays on the House floor, I would have done so with the satisfaction that our government won̢۪t be funding the abortion of potential life.
tjrich09 • Nov 18, 2009 at 6:38 pm
@ Common Sense
I admit that my own comments were fueled by emotion, much of which has built up over the last few articles Peterson has written. And if you’ve read the previous articles you would know that he does attack homosexualit and promote extremist views concerning conservatism and evangelism. And he did it yet again with this article, which is a clear attack on Obama’s views on abortion, and a misleading one at that. But I’m not the journalist here, and am not responsible for providing people with a credible and insightful news source.
Secondly, I never mentioned my own views on abortion in my first response. I only stated that Peterson is misleading his readers by claiming Obama is supportive of “partial birth abortions.” So I’m not sure what you mean by my wanting people to bow down before me. All I want is for those in the news media to begin doing their jobs and providing people with a relatively unbiased representation of the facts. Peterson simply could have stuck to the story about the Stupak ammendment, but instead he chose to discuss the president’s views on abortion. Perhaps there is some merit to this argument, as it is in many ways his health care bill and his presidency. But even then, the way he presented the information was, at best, only half true. Where he gets his information from I’m not sure, but the few incidents I can think of where Obama voted present on a bill that would ban on partial birth abortions, and the reasoning he gives for his vote, clearly do not point to full on support for the procedure.
By the way, I think it quite humorous that you attack me because I attacked him. It seems somewhat hypocritical, and defeats the purpose of your comment. I mean, to claim hyperbole on my part, and then provide hyperbolic comments of your own, seems rather funny to me.I think to best prove your argument would have been to point out my own hypocricy, and then been the better man and actually tackled the issue.
As to the Stupak ammendment, I do see it as an enormous road block for health care, especially if the bill does come back to the house with the ammendment either gone or altered in some way. So I agree that Peterson has a point in that there’s going to have to be some kind of compromise. However, if the ammendment stays in the bill, then many of those pro-choice representatives will be angry and may not want to pass a bill which might be harmful to those people who do wish to get abortions yet can’t afford it. But it may be as simple as changing the language to please both parties. And I’m not so sure where I stand. It seems to me that government funding should not be used for abortions. At the same time though, I know many poverty stricken women who might turn to other means if a safe options isn’t open to them. But then again, at least here in California, there are programs that will help women pay for them. My wife’s cousin, who was raped, was able to get one at a rather cheap cost. It makes me wonder if other states have the same programs.
tjrich09 • Nov 19, 2009 at 2:38 am
@ Common Sense
I admit that my own comments were fueled by emotion, much of which has built up over the last few articles Peterson has written. And if you’ve read the previous articles you would know that he does attack homosexualit and promote extremist views concerning conservatism and evangelism. And he did it yet again with this article, which is a clear attack on Obama’s views on abortion, and a misleading one at that. But I’m not the journalist here, and am not responsible for providing people with a credible and insightful news source.
Secondly, I never mentioned my own views on abortion in my first response. I only stated that Peterson is misleading his readers by claiming Obama is supportive of “partial birth abortions.” So I’m not sure what you mean by my wanting people to bow down before me. All I want is for those in the news media to begin doing their jobs and providing people with a relatively unbiased representation of the facts. Peterson simply could have stuck to the story about the Stupak ammendment, but instead he chose to discuss the president’s views on abortion. Perhaps there is some merit to this argument, as it is in many ways his health care bill and his presidency. But even then, the way he presented the information was, at best, only half true. Where he gets his information from I’m not sure, but the few incidents I can think of where Obama voted present on a bill that would ban on partial birth abortions, and the reasoning he gives for his vote, clearly do not point to full on support for the procedure.
By the way, I think it quite humorous that you attack me because I attacked him. It seems somewhat hypocritical, and defeats the purpose of your comment. I mean, to claim hyperbole on my part, and then provide hyperbolic comments of your own, seems rather funny to me.I think to best prove your argument would have been to point out my own hypocricy, and then been the better man and actually tackled the issue.
As to the Stupak ammendment, I do see it as an enormous road block for health care, especially if the bill does come back to the house with the ammendment either gone or altered in some way. So I agree that Peterson has a point in that there’s going to have to be some kind of compromise. However, if the ammendment stays in the bill, then many of those pro-choice representatives will be angry and may not want to pass a bill which might be harmful to those people who do wish to get abortions yet can’t afford it. But it may be as simple as changing the language to please both parties. And I’m not so sure where I stand. It seems to me that government funding should not be used for abortions. At the same time though, I know many poverty stricken women who might turn to other means if a safe options isn’t open to them. But then again, at least here in California, there are programs that will help women pay for them. My wife’s cousin, who was raped, was able to get one at a rather cheap cost. It makes me wonder if other states have the same programs.
tjrich09 • Nov 19, 2009 at 2:38 am
@ Common Sense
I admit that my own comments were fueled by emotion, much of which has built up over the last few articles Peterson has written. And if you’ve read the previous articles you would know that he does attack homosexualit and promote extremist views concerning conservatism and evangelism. And he did it yet again with this article, which is a clear attack on Obama’s views on abortion, and a misleading one at that. But I’m not the journalist here, and am not responsible for providing people with a credible and insightful news source.
Secondly, I never mentioned my own views on abortion in my first response. I only stated that Peterson is misleading his readers by claiming Obama is supportive of “partial birth abortions.” So I’m not sure what you mean by my wanting people to bow down before me. All I want is for those in the news media to begin doing their jobs and providing people with a relatively unbiased representation of the facts. Peterson simply could have stuck to the story about the Stupak ammendment, but instead he chose to discuss the president’s views on abortion. Perhaps there is some merit to this argument, as it is in many ways his health care bill and his presidency. But even then, the way he presented the information was, at best, only half true. Where he gets his information from I’m not sure, but the few incidents I can think of where Obama voted present on a bill that would ban on partial birth abortions, and the reasoning he gives for his vote, clearly do not point to full on support for the procedure.
By the way, I think it quite humorous that you attack me because I attacked him. It seems somewhat hypocritical, and defeats the purpose of your comment. I mean, to claim hyperbole on my part, and then provide hyperbolic comments of your own, seems rather funny to me.I think to best prove your argument would have been to point out my own hypocricy, and then been the better man and actually tackled the issue.
As to the Stupak ammendment, I do see it as an enormous road block for health care, especially if the bill does come back to the house with the ammendment either gone or altered in some way. So I agree that Peterson has a point in that there’s going to have to be some kind of compromise. However, if the ammendment stays in the bill, then many of those pro-choice representatives will be angry and may not want to pass a bill which might be harmful to those people who do wish to get abortions yet can’t afford it. But it may be as simple as changing the language to please both parties. And I’m not so sure where I stand. It seems to me that government funding should not be used for abortions. At the same time though, I know many poverty stricken women who might turn to other means if a safe options isn’t open to them. But then again, at least here in California, there are programs that will help women pay for them. My wife’s cousin, who was raped, was able to get one at a rather cheap cost. It makes me wonder if other states have the same programs.
Common sense required • Nov 17, 2009 at 12:18 pm
tjrich09
Thank you for your revealing insights. You criticize the writer for being simple-minded but your rant starts off with:
” I’m sure you’ll make a wonderful writer, and can even picture you now drafting editorials for antichoicehomophobicracistsexistrightwingersofamerica.com. Your two hundred loyal McVeigh domestic terrorists will appreciate all the hard thinking you put into everything you write.”
So if someone disagrees with your position (and the President’s) on abortion then they are a racist, homophobe, right-winger and support Timothy McVeigh and what he did? What a great example of tackling the issue and not seeing everything in a simplistic light. Your spin on spin was further evidence of the great intellectual rigor you bring to these complicated issues. Let us all bow before the brilliance of tjrich09 and understand that we must agree with you, for to disagree is to acknowledge that we are domestic terrorists. There was at least one incredibly dimwitted person that read the article. I’ll let you figure out who.
Common sense required • Nov 17, 2009 at 8:18 pm
tjrich09
Thank you for your revealing insights. You criticize the writer for being simple-minded but your rant starts off with:
” I’m sure you’ll make a wonderful writer, and can even picture you now drafting editorials for antichoicehomophobicracistsexistrightwingersofamerica.com. Your two hundred loyal McVeigh domestic terrorists will appreciate all the hard thinking you put into everything you write.”
So if someone disagrees with your position (and the President’s) on abortion then they are a racist, homophobe, right-winger and support Timothy McVeigh and what he did? What a great example of tackling the issue and not seeing everything in a simplistic light. Your spin on spin was further evidence of the great intellectual rigor you bring to these complicated issues. Let us all bow before the brilliance of tjrich09 and understand that we must agree with you, for to disagree is to acknowledge that we are domestic terrorists. There was at least one incredibly dimwitted person that read the article. I’ll let you figure out who.
Common sense required • Nov 17, 2009 at 8:18 pm
tjrich09
Thank you for your revealing insights. You criticize the writer for being simple-minded but your rant starts off with:
” I’m sure you’ll make a wonderful writer, and can even picture you now drafting editorials for antichoicehomophobicracistsexistrightwingersofamerica.com. Your two hundred loyal McVeigh domestic terrorists will appreciate all the hard thinking you put into everything you write.”
So if someone disagrees with your position (and the President’s) on abortion then they are a racist, homophobe, right-winger and support Timothy McVeigh and what he did? What a great example of tackling the issue and not seeing everything in a simplistic light. Your spin on spin was further evidence of the great intellectual rigor you bring to these complicated issues. Let us all bow before the brilliance of tjrich09 and understand that we must agree with you, for to disagree is to acknowledge that we are domestic terrorists. There was at least one incredibly dimwitted person that read the article. I’ll let you figure out who.
tjrich09 • Nov 16, 2009 at 8:58 am
So, providing a half-true directly misleading attack on Obama inbetween some talk about the health care bill? I guess that’s what you call good journalism nowadays. I’m sure you’ll make a wonderful writer, and can even picture you now drafting editorials for antichoicehomophobicracistsexistrightwingersofamerica.com. Your two hundred loyal McVeigh domestic terrorists will appreciate all the hard thinking you put into everything you write. Seriously though, how did this article, which I was enjoying at first, become simply an attack on president obama. I thought this was about health care and the stupac amendment. Or are you simply too afraid to tackle the issue? Maybe a little too complicated for your simple mind to handle? I mean, you do seem to see everything in an incredibly simplistic light. As though Obama “supports partial birth abortions” is the same thing as Obama “supports a) a woman’s right to choose, or b) the continuing health and safety of America’s mothers.” You can spin it any way you want, but by doing so you are only insulting the readers of the collegian, whom you must consider incredibly dimwitted to believe such rudimentary journalistic analysis. Stop simplifying matters that are of great concern to our school and our country simply to support your own views. And c’mon, show a little respect to your readers.
tjrich09 • Nov 16, 2009 at 4:58 pm
So, providing a half-true directly misleading attack on Obama inbetween some talk about the health care bill? I guess that’s what you call good journalism nowadays. I’m sure you’ll make a wonderful writer, and can even picture you now drafting editorials for antichoicehomophobicracistsexistrightwingersofamerica.com. Your two hundred loyal McVeigh domestic terrorists will appreciate all the hard thinking you put into everything you write. Seriously though, how did this article, which I was enjoying at first, become simply an attack on president obama. I thought this was about health care and the stupac amendment. Or are you simply too afraid to tackle the issue? Maybe a little too complicated for your simple mind to handle? I mean, you do seem to see everything in an incredibly simplistic light. As though Obama “supports partial birth abortions” is the same thing as Obama “supports a) a woman’s right to choose, or b) the continuing health and safety of America’s mothers.” You can spin it any way you want, but by doing so you are only insulting the readers of the collegian, whom you must consider incredibly dimwitted to believe such rudimentary journalistic analysis. Stop simplifying matters that are of great concern to our school and our country simply to support your own views. And c’mon, show a little respect to your readers.
tjrich09 • Nov 16, 2009 at 4:58 pm
So, providing a half-true directly misleading attack on Obama inbetween some talk about the health care bill? I guess that’s what you call good journalism nowadays. I’m sure you’ll make a wonderful writer, and can even picture you now drafting editorials for antichoicehomophobicracistsexistrightwingersofamerica.com. Your two hundred loyal McVeigh domestic terrorists will appreciate all the hard thinking you put into everything you write. Seriously though, how did this article, which I was enjoying at first, become simply an attack on president obama. I thought this was about health care and the stupac amendment. Or are you simply too afraid to tackle the issue? Maybe a little too complicated for your simple mind to handle? I mean, you do seem to see everything in an incredibly simplistic light. As though Obama “supports partial birth abortions” is the same thing as Obama “supports a) a woman’s right to choose, or b) the continuing health and safety of America’s mothers.” You can spin it any way you want, but by doing so you are only insulting the readers of the collegian, whom you must consider incredibly dimwitted to believe such rudimentary journalistic analysis. Stop simplifying matters that are of great concern to our school and our country simply to support your own views. And c’mon, show a little respect to your readers.