Thursday, September 06, 2012

Dem. Congressman Stupak: "I'm Perplexed and Disappointed..."

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Remember Congressman, now former, Bart Stupak?

Let me remind you. He is the Democrat who held up the vote on Obamacare from passing Congress. He was the final swing vote.

Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, first said he could not support President Obama's healthcare scheme because it funded abortions. And he and several of his colleagues refused to vote for it.

Enter the President.

After meeting with the President, Stupak told the country he could "now vote for it" because he had "negotiated" a deal with President Obama.

The President issued an Executive Order, that he said would not, repeat, would not allow abortions to be funded through his Obamacare.

Many warned Stupak, but he believed the President.


Although Mrs. Obama told America the other night that one of the many things she admired about her husband was that he always "keeps his word," Stupak would probably not agree with him.

Stupak is now struggling with the concept of believing the President. And said so on video at the Convention last week.

In a video captured by Red State, Stupak tells his colleagues, "I am perplexed and disappointed that having negotiated the Executive Order with the President, not only does the HHS mandate violate the Executive Order, but it also violates statutory law."

Perhaps others are sharing some of his disappointment. Obama's speech tonight has been moved from the 74,000-seat football stadium to an indoor 15,000-seat arena.

They say the decision is related to weather concerns.

I believe I hear Samuel Adams speaking to us in 2012, saying, "Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a state than that all persons employed in places of power and trust be men of exceptional character. The public cannot be too curious concerning the character of public men."

Be Curious.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.


  1. You do realize that this is still true, right? That government funding is a small part of Obamacare and that the President promised that no federal money will be going towards abortions. That still leaves plenty of money proved by citizens and employers to go for the few that are performed.

    Remember, Obamacare is just mandatory private insurance and while some will be getting federal tax credits to help with their being able to afford it, the vast majority of the money will still be coming from individuals and employers just as private insurance always has.

    Since I remember this from back when it was a controversy this isn't new information. No reasonable person has ever thought it meant that the mandated private insurance would suddenly not support birth control and abortion costs - many always have, just that any federal dollars mandated by Obamacare wouldn't be going for them.

    Why all the straw men and red herrings - are there no real substantive issues for you to discuss? Are things really going so well that make-believe monsters under the bed is all that's left to scare people with?

    1. Oshtur—

      Let me share a perspective with you. Let’s talk about Obama’s healthcare plan. The move will be to high deductible plans being provided in the private sector. Why because they cost less and place more of the financial burden on the person who has that policy. Now if you are a single healthy individual this is not much of an issue. I suspect this is the category you are in. However, if you are a person with a family this is going to be a financial issue for you. Especially those folks that have young children. To clarify so you will understand high deductible the yearly out of pocket expense a family would have to pay BEFORE their insurance will kick in is roughly $6000 dollars. I happen to be on one these plans by choice. Early in my career I would not have been able to afford this plan and this is exactly my point. This will push many folks to the government driven insurance. I do believe you are naive if you believe that is not the goal of the Obama plan.
      Now let’s talk about abortion and contraceptives and the day after pill. To give you a perspective point, I am female. These items may be of no concern to you and you are entitled to that opinion. It does not negate that for me an others this is a very relevant moral character stance. I personally will not vote for a person who advocates for these things. I believe you are not aware of the fact that there are already court battles because of these issues. Forced by the judicial branch of the government to dispense what goes against their personal beliefs. Plethora of information on the following: The government wants to invade religious institutions and force them to go against their religious beliefs. There is a reason the 1st amendment exists and it is for these very reasons.
      Should you be one of those that believe it is the Constitution that states separation of church and state I suggest you read the constitution. It’s not there it does however say the following: The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion.
      I think you should be truthful about why you are posting to this site. I wonder if you have the courage to do so.


    2. Mel, truth doesn't take courage merely a commitment. I post on this site because I see so many falsehoods, prevarication's and distortions. If you notice, that is when I chime in. I'm always reading but if a blog entry just says 'I think gays are icky' that's their right, there's nothing to comment about. But if they say something blatantly unAmerican like 'I think I should be able to force people to act as if my religion were theirs' or outright falsehoods like 'Marriage equality is bad because it will lead to bedbugs' I will post an 'corrective' view.

      Your first paragraph is off topic but does contradict what another 'fear article' that was sent to me said that the high deductible options will be going away, that the only 40% coverage will be gone, with 60% being the new minimum coverage.

      I don't understand what you mean by 'the government driven insurance' - even the insurance pools are still private insurance, just letting the people join a pool to lower their group costs just as it does with employer. There is no government insurance being offered other than Medicare and Medicaid.

      As to the part that is topical, the religion of the employer is immaterial to the employee, they have a right to health care consistent with their beliefs, not the employers. Shoot if the employer got to decide we'd just see a mass conversion by business owners to Christian Scientist, then they wouldn't have to provide ANY health coverage.

      Employees have a right to health care that covers their needs. If they all believe as the employer then no harm or foul - none will take advantage of their birth control options. But if they don't share those beliefs they have a right to health coverage consistent with their own, not the employers, regardless. Freedom of religion means a person has a right to practice their own religion, not pretend that anyone else shares their beliefs or treat them as if they do particularly employees.

      I think where our philosophical differences come in is as an American I feel that it is my sacred obligation to give my fellow citizens the largest range of choices that I can, they have a Creator given right to pursuit their happiness under their own terms whether I would act the same or not. Example, I think riding a motorcycle on the freeway is an insane risk, but I don't want to prevent people from doing it if they choose to.

      Obviously Gary has a right to have a blog, and he doesn't even need to allow any of my posts to get through. But arguing in a echo chamber that operates by its own rules and lives in its own fantasy pronouncements would be a bit mentally 'incestuous' don't you think? Again, that the promise was only about specific federal dollars being used for abortion but policies would still need to cover it was known the day the executive order was signed. This hope for the fog of time would erase that fact from the memory of the readers basically mandated a 'reality check' didn't it?

    3. Oshtur—
      Regarding your argument about employers and their religious beliefs, they do matter. It is the foundation which they serve their communities. They are also the organizations that provide the most charity as this is also part of their foundation which is rooted in their religious beliefs. An organization that seeks to serve because of their religious beliefs has a human mission before they have a bottom line. Don’t go off the deep end about bottom lines because all endeavors have a cost.
      As far as the employees this would affect, they are free to seek employment with an employer that offers them the insurance they would like to have. It was their choice to work for such an employer. Organizations that are affiliated with a particular religion do not hide their associations.
      Additionally, prior to Obama, healthcare was a benefit and enticement offered as a result of employment. Now we are creating an entitlement system. The move to entitlement breeds loss of self-accountability and responsibility. As with all things each individual must make choices about how they will spend their money. Now we have the government telling us how to spend our money. This might be tolerable if they had to abide by the same rules they pass as law but this is not true. They are exempt.
      Then there is the whole part of the community that is unemployed or underemployed. And who will they turn to for health insurance? The government. This is the going to be the largest growing part of the insurance arena. I wonder if you know what the reimbursement rate is for Medicaid and Medicare? It is approx. 33 cents to the dollar. To think this will not affect health care systems and their ability to provide care is naïve.
      I do not believe health care is a right. It is a choice.
      I find this statement ironic, “blatantly unAmerican like 'I think I should be able to force people to act as if my religion were theirs'. I would argue that is exactly what you are doing. Now the person who does not agree with you is “un-American”? The ability to disagree is quintessential to being American. It’s called freedom of speech. The idea you feel compelled to provide a “corrective view” about beliefs different from yours places you in the same boat as the persons you are” correcting”. By your own standards. That fact that you feel compelled “to give my fellow citizens the largest range of choices that I can,” I think you would actually provide them with facts and thoughts to ponder.
      I personally do not care if you have the same religious beliefs as me or of the persons reading Gary’s blog. I do care that you ridicule them because they have their beliefs. I care that you attempt to demean their points of view. I care that you assume you are more knowing then they are. And I care that you are attempting to “force” your secular world view, a religion unto itself.

    4. No Mel, saying an employer can just say 'go somewhere else if you don't agree with my religion' would be like the ones that used religion to rationalize their racial bigotry. An American does not have the right to force their religious views on someone else, especially not a customer or an employee.

      And when I talk of 'unAmerican' that's what I mean. One thing we do agree on as Americans is every single one of us has a right to our own religion, and that we have a right to practice it regardless of what anyone else thinks. That is one of our common American axioms, isn't it? Do you believe in everyone's religious freedom or not? That isn't 'my religion' that is an assumption that every single American can be assumed to have! Freedom of religion is a two edged sword - it means you can believe what you want, but everyone else can believe what they want and we all have a right to be treated exactly the same by government regardless.

      And if 'their point of view' is unAmerican, if it tries to put their beliefs above others, if it says they can treat others as if they share their beliefs even when they don't, yes I will point that out. How is pointing out that someone is going against the American ideals' demeaning'? If it is the explain how that is. Explain how someone can treat someone as if they were a member of their religion when they aren't and still be true to the American ideals.

      'Secular world view'? this is the American world view. We believe all have a right to their own religion, that we have no right to hold one religion above another except for ourselves. That is part of what being an American is all about - everyone has their own freedom to choose their own religion, their one path to happiness, and that right is inalienable and absolute. If that's a religion, its the American one, and when I see people sullying it I am compelled to speak out.

      So what 'facts' ponderable or otherwise do you have to refute that? I brought up that it was known the executive order only applied to fedral funds, that the policies would still support reproductive services. I'm sure you've check, I'm sure you know I spoke the truth. So what more do you want?

      In this nation founded by Christians, Deist, Quakers, Unitarians and even atheists, how do you justify religious bigotry, one citizen denying someone equal rights because they don't hold to the same values as their sect, who would deny a lawabiding employee or customer their right to their own values of their own sect?

      I made my case and made it very clear where I was coming from - justify your position, how can you support denying someone that which is acceptable to their faith even if it isn't yours and not do the same for those that claim religious justification for racism, bigotry, and religious persecution?

      You have a right to your opinions, but that doesn't mean you won't be called on them.

    5. I think the point was, no government should have the right to force me to sell a product that violates my religious beliefs, whether I'm an employer or employee. The First Amendment is not a suicide pact.

      Craig in Lacey

    6. How can a 'product' violate your religious beliefs? How would you limit this 'right' so that people aren't denying service to blacks because they bear the mark of Cain, or Islamists because they are 'servants of the Devil', or deny service to people in mixed race marriages because they truly believe that 'God wanted the races to remain separate" or those with more than 2 children because they think such excesses are immoral?

      Now if you are a Christian Paul said it was ok to have business dealings with those not of your church, their sins are not your concern, only God's, so giving someone access to birth control isn't a 'suicide pact' in this life or the next.

      The asnwer is the one you all really dislike but the only one possible in our by design pluralistic society - "If you don't like some legal thing to do, then don't do it. But until you can make it illegal acknowledge you have no right to tell someone else they can't or discriminate against them because their totally legal view differs from yours."

  2. I forgot to add my thoughts to the orginal posting about Stupak. I think he got duped and I feel for him because now he has to live with the deception played against him in order to get his vote. I think he really did try to act in good faith and adhere to his personal and religious beliefs.

  3. Men change, culture changes, but God's thoughts on this does not. Our country was founded on freedom, so dare.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.