CatholicVoteAction.org

Our illustrious hierarchy Of Bishops is totally wrong in continuing to oppose the Health
Care Bill which was passed. As an octogenarian I feel totally right in my criticism. Having been Blessed by our Good Lord with this longevity I feel we need to provide health care for all of our legal citizens. I DO OPPOSE ABORTION and always have .

“A coward dies a thousand deaths but a brave man dies but once.” Bart Stupak went from appearing a brave man to confound us as a horrible coward. I truelly feel sorry for your eternal death.
May god have mercy on your soul.

What a cave, and what a sinner. Stupak, it was within your power to stop this from happening. The libs did show us though how to make an end run around the super majority vote.

He sold out – Stupak!! Plain and Simple

Stupak is stupid (”Studid is as stupid does”) or iscompletely out of touch with the values and actions of today’s nationwide Pro Life movement. Up from the roots at local levels, we care about not just life and the pre-born but offer medical, financial and psychlogical support to the mother and the father that decide on a loving option. As well, we offer help to those mothers who have had an abortion and like the 85% that do regret their abortion and will live with it their and their family’s pain, we bring healing. God’s love and mercy fills us in a peaceful but outspoken way to intercept, as we can, some of the one million abortions provided mostly by Planned Parenthood each and every year since 1973 and kept in business by other taxpayer dollars that supposedly go for family planning. Today’s middle-aged generation has been gutted by a full one-third of their own with one half of the Aftrican Americans cut from the womb which is nothing less than forced genocide. Stupak has crucified us and our truly Pro Life efforts on Washington’s “Calvary” by his caustic and totally inappropriate “Judas-like” behavior for the favor of the Pro-Abortion White House and the majority of the Democrats. May God forgive him for the pain he has inflcted on the many more pre-born that will not survive regardless if Obama decides to cancel his executive order like he did the Mexico City Accord on the date of March for Life. Mother Theresa said, “The Greatest Destruction of Love is An Abortion” and Stupak has led his dupped democarats to an election slaughter at the polls.

Well that is something I can agree with you about. This and the position of so many regarding the Iraq War does show Catholics not really standing with the bishops.
Yet, I didnt hear much outcry about that. Actually I don’t remember hearing any.

“… you state that Stupak is a traitor …”

This is demonstrably untrue.

“For most moderate people in this country, many of them are fine with the Senate version of the healthcare bill and they are seeing democrats as protecting life… The bishops chose to dig their heels in, and see this as an abortion promoting bill.”

As a Catholic, I’ll stand with the Bishops. The burden of proof is on those Catholics who did not. (Just as the burden of proof was on those Catholics who supported the Iraq War in opposition to the Bishops.)

I think there is more than meets the eye here.

My dear old dad, who spent his youth with a well-known mob of men, says that Stupak clearly knows he has done wrong. He said he could read it the second he saw him speak. In much the same way as when we commit a mortal sin, for the first time in a long time, and then immediately grieve over it. Stupak was grieving. Then a second sin is committed where the heart hardens just a little more.

I am not unconvinced that Stupak’s life or the life of someone close to him was threatened. It is well known how harassed his own wife felt in recent days. Given recent events involving him, it is not much of a stretch to suppose Emmanuel is threatening to pull a trigger somewhere in the dark. He is a dangerous, dangerous man. Some of the old guys around here, and especially my dad say that of Emmanuel: people like him kill people.

Let’s not be too hard on Stupak. You never know what’s going on behind the curtains.

Jay,
As far hard core Catholics, you state that Stupak is a traitor. For most moderate people in this country, many of them are fine with the Senate version of the healthcare bill and they are seeing democrats as protecting life. I guess that wouldnt dawn on you, because you might not know too many non religious people.
It doesnt matter if you have contributed to the RNC or not. By them having that abortion in their insurance plan, you as a tax payer, are paying for some politician to have abortion coverage somewhere.

The bishops chose to dig their heels in, and see this as an abortion promoting bill. At one point it wasnt even clear if they would have supported this bill if there was no proposed abortion funding in it. Congress took a pretty large step in universal coverage for people that does not fund abortions with tax payer money. Hopefully it will reduce abortions as well.

“Wow, Jay, that’s quite judgmental of you. My version of the consistent ethic of life views the unborn, who are the most numerous and most vulnerable of those whose lives are being destroyed, of preeminent concern. Your presumption astounds me.”

Then I, too, will apologize for painting with too broad a brush. Unfortunately, I find that those who generally accuse pro-lifers of being “pro-birth” and of not embracing the consistent ethic of life seem to be able to find all kinds of reasons to support “pro-choice” politicians and their policies all the while pointing out the mote in the pro-life movement’s eyes.

Many of those same people spent the last few weeks working against (and even trashing) the U.S. Bishops’ efforts to include the Stupak amendment. I’m sorry, but, just as those who favored the Iraq War despite the Bishops’ opposition had the burden of proof to show that they were pursuing a consistent ethic of life, those who opposed the Bishops’ efforts in getting the Stupak Amendment into the health care bill have a similar burden of proving their commitment to a consistent ethic of life. You’ll have to forgive me for once again being “judgmental”, but I have no doubts that many of these folks would have supported the health care reform bill even without the Senate’s Nelson Amendment included, all the while justifying their support for the measure on seamless garment/consistent ethic of life grounds.

“I don’t think Stupak had in mind folks with genuine concerns about the bill’s pro-life credentials when he gave that speech. The speech was addressed to those (especially some Republican reps) who used abortion as a cover to oppose the bill for other reasons, and were trying to guilt-trip him into reneging (by appealing to a matter which he was far more concerned about than they).”

Unfortunately, Stupak makes no such distinction in his speech from the House floor. He condemns the the motion to recommit and calls it “nothing more than an opportunity to continue to deny 32 million Americans health care” and calls it “really a last-ditch effort … of denying Americans health care”. He goes on to say that it “does not promote life” and has the chutzpah to claim that it is the Democrats who REALLY have “stood up for the principle of no public funding of abortions”.

Stupak didn’t draw ANY distinctions about the motivations of ANYONE supporting the motion to recommit. Among those pushing for the motion to recommit were Congressmen Chris Smith and Joseph Cao. Sorry, but despite your claim that this was a “matter matter which [Stupak] was far more concerned about than they”, Stupak doesn’t hold a candle to these gentlemen – Chris Smith and Joseph Cao – when it comes to promoting a consistent ethic of life. Stupak spat in their faces with his words.

Notwithstanding your efforts to put the best spin on what Stupak did here, he DID, in fact, attack pro-lifers using the words of the enemies of the pro-life movement.

Wow, Jay, that’s quite judgmental of you. My version of the consistent ethic of life views the unborn, who are the most numerous and most vulnerable of those whose lives are being destroyed, of preeminent concern. Your presumption astounds me.

I’m sorry if you took my post in a similar presumptuous manner, but I did not mean to imply that you, Jay, do not have a consistent ethic of life. In the part that you quoted, I have a big if and was using “you” to mean “one” (substitute “one” for “you” and my intention remains unchanged). I should have had another “if” after my id est for the sake of clarity, so I apologize for any confusion.

I don’t think Stupak had in mind folks with genuine concerns about the bill’s pro-life credentials when he gave that speech. The speech was addressed to those (especially some Republican reps) who used abortion as a cover to oppose the bill for other reasons, and were trying to guilt-trip him into reneging (by appealing to a matter which he was far more concerned about than they). My point was: since these faux-pro-lifers (note: I didn’t identify you as one of them) were really his target, real pro-lifers ought not be offended by his jab.

In other words, you, and I, may be “constantly” accused of being “pro-birth” rather than “pro-life,” but I don’t think it should bother/sting us (other than insofar as we feel pity for the accuser’s ignorance of where we stand), and I don’t think Stupak had consistent-ethic-of-lifers who still opposed the bill (e.g. Marion Berry) in mind when he made the speech.

And I agree, Michael, it was a terrible speech. Have you considered a “scenario #4″: Pelosi did have the votes (some “emergency votes” were in her pocket who ended up not having to be used since Stupak came on board), but wanted to woo Stupak for PR purposes? After all, he was the foremost sign of Democratic opposition to the bill, and getting him took some of the wind of the opponents’ sails.

The sad thing was is that was a terrible speech. Heck, if you’re going to stab us in the back at least have some eloquence while doing it. Jeesh, this man is just begging to lose his seat.

“Calling for a consistent ethic of life should only sting if you have something to be ashamed of (i.e., you don’t have a consistent ethic of life). So, “real pro-lifers” shouldn’t be offended by such remarks at all.”

You don’t know what you’re talking about. People who work to protect the unborn – even those of us who DO, in fact, have a consistent ethic of life – are CONSTANTLY accused of not caring about the mothers and only caring about the babies until they are born. In fact, Stupak, himself, has been recently accused of doing just that by holding up the bill for as long as he did.

But maybe it’s time for YOU to come clean: your version of the “consistent ethic of life” somehow seems to always conveniently and conspicuously exclude the unborn.

“… why don’t any of you consider that you helped to contribute to abortions by contributing to the Republican party”

I’ve never contributed a political dollar in my life. And I’m not a Republican.

Try again.

Actually David Fromm has it right. If the Republicans would have worked to create a bill instead of just working to obstruct a bill, maybe we all would have gotten a better bill out of this. They have themselves to blame. Also, why don’t any of you consider that you helped to contribute to abortions by contributing to the Republican party. Afterall they had abortion in their insurance politices up until a few short months ago. It’s all intertwined and yet people seem to fail to see this.

Gee, Peter, you’re right. We should never call out evil when we see it. We ahould just look the other way and forgive the totally unrepentant who keep making things even worse, instead of fighting injustice and letting betrayal have any consequences. A better bill than we would have gotten? The one we got offers no conscience protection, and the executive order is meaningless. We needed the bill fixed, and nothing less than fixed. The executive order is meaningless, and Stupak didn’t change anything for the better.

Seconded, Peter.

Calling for a consistent ethic of life should only sting if you have something to be ashamed of (i.e., you don’t have a consistent ethic of life). So, “real pro-lifers” shouldn’t be offended by such remarks at all. Those remarks were aimed at people using abortion as an excuse/cover to oppose the bill for other reasons. And there certainly are those folks out there.

He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. 8 out of 10 parents of kids with medical issues I have talked to are gravely concerned about how this bill will affect their kids.

Right, how does he look Smith or Cao in the eye . . . ? How does he look at himself in the mirror, is my question.

Peter, yes, of course Stupak is forgivable. But he’s not exactly acting remorseful, is he?

Give the guy a break. Again if it were not for Stupak, you might have had a worse bill than what you got. You know, this bitterness is really something. Did you ever consider a main point of Christianity is in the way we are able to forgive one another.
Do you think someone yelling out ‘baby killer’, didnt have maybe a little something to do with that reaction?