Put a Sock In It, Bart

Stupak takes to the Times to defend himself, which means he must be feeling some heat:

The language in our amendment is completely consistent with the Hyde Amendment, which in the 33 years since its passage has done nothing to inhibit private health insurers from offering abortion coverage. There is no reason to believe that a continuation of this policy would suddenly create undue hardship for the insurance industry — or for those who wish to use their private insurance to pay for an abortion.

Then I guess it will be no big damned deal when your amendment is not inluded in the final bill, you C-Street busybody. I’d like Rep. Stupak to take some time to talk about the relationship between the C-Street creeps and the folks proposing legislation to execute homosexuals in Uganda. Then I might listen to him.

Have we figured out who to send money to to primary this clown?

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit






36 replies
  1. 1
    Jim says:

    The language in our amendment is completely consistent with the Hyde Amendment

    So why then, Mr Stupak, did you feel the need to throw this monkey-wrench into efforts to get poor, working-class and self-employed people easier access to health care? Was it on the advice of your friends at C-Street? That fine Xian Rick Warren?

  2. 2
    Mark S. says:

    There is no reason to believe that a continuation of this policy would suddenly create undue hardship for the insurance industry

    Because that’s what everybody was really worried about: undue hardship for insurance companies. WTF?

  3. 3
    Zifnab says:

    I heard the bill can’t pass until the Council of Catholic Bishops gives it their full approval. Or something. Nice to know after ’06 and ’08 we’re still completely beholden to the fringe religious nutters.

    This bill has been so repeatedly gutted and defaced, I’ve lost a lot of my love for it. I am almost dreading what finally makes it to the President’s desk. We watched this bill go through committee after committee in the Senate alone and watched the public option get skinned like a grape. Remind me again of the value of politely making concessions to Republicans and Republican-lites for six months, rather than just railroading a bill through in a few weeks and letting Jeff Sessions and Mitch McConnell read from the phone book for the same amount of time?

  4. 4
    Noonan says:

    If only the Catholic Church protested tax dollars funding wars as much as they protest tax dollars funding abortions.

  5. 5
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @Zifnab: If you get a chance, go see who was covered in the original social security bill. According to Wikipedia:

    Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns. Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently. These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half the working population. Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security. At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”

    Even it was a mess when it came out. This bill may not be great, but it is a start.

  6. 6
    beltane says:

    Too bad Stupak can’t be seduced, impregnated, and abandoned. Rick Warren, too. People should protest outside of Saddleback Church they way the Operation Rescue assholes do at Planned Parenthood clinics.

  7. 7
    Persia says:

    @beltane: I’d like to impregnate Stupak all right. With an Alien.

  8. 8
    Notorious P.A.T. says:

    @Mark S.:

    Good catch.

  9. 9
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Have we figured out who to send money to to primary this clown?

    Me.

  10. 10

    How long before we find out someone has video of him wearing a leather mask with a gag ball in his mouth? You know it’s coming.

  11. 11
    dadanarchist says:

    I’d like Rep. Stupak to take some time to talk about the relationship between the C-Street creeps and the folks proposing legislation to execute homosexuals in Uganda. Then I might listen to him.

    I emailed Ben Smith at Politico and suggested that he do exactly that: ask members of C-Street/the Family what they thought about the Uganda legislation.

    Sure, it’s a dumb question and guilt by association journamalism, but since that is Politico’s stock in trade, I thought they’d like the free story tip.

    He emailed me back for links but so far, bupkus.

  12. 12
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): I don’t think we have 50 years to get health care reform right.

  13. 13
    LittleBit says:

    The sooner we have an amendment mandating DNA verification of fatherhood and mandatory child support, the sooner we can shut the Stupak’s of the world up for good.

    Think of the children. !!!

  14. 14
    Col. Klink says:

    C-Street is in panic and they forgot the safety word.

  15. 15
    John Thullen says:

    I wonder how many abortions were performed over the years as a result of the behavior of the sperm donors at the shadowy C-Street sperm church.

  16. 16
    danimal says:

    Stupak is full of bs. If he wants the Hyde Amendment to remain the law of the land, he didn’t need to do a thing. It already is, and nobody was trying to use HCR to change the abortion status quo.

    Disingenuous BS.

  17. 17
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    @Noonan:

    Well maybe if the Catholic church itself actually paid taxes it would demand real accountability for how they’re spent.

  18. 18
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    Have we figured out who to send money to to primary this clown?

    Ooh, ooh, let me go look. You know that’s my shtick.

    Drat. According to the Open Congress Wiki for MI-01, there’s no primary challenge if the incumbent runs. However, they say he’s considering a run for Governor.

    Guess I’ll have to use my next favorite tactic: contribute to Michigan Planned Parenthood in his honor.

  19. 19
    Midnight Marauder says:

    Then I guess it will be no big damned deal when your amendment is not inluded in the final bill, you C-Street busybody.

    This is really the crux of the matter right here. If your amendment really is “completely consistent with the Hyde Amendment,” then why are you saying crazy shit like this:

    “If they are going to summarily dismiss us by taking the pen to that language, there will be hell to pay. I don’t say it as a threat, but if they double-cross us, there will be 40 people who won’t vote with them the next time they need us — and that could be the final version of this bill.”

    But even more revealing, I think, is the fact that he just keeps repeating the same lies over and over again. Lies that have been thoroughly debunked and exposed as having no basis in reality. But Stupak wants to double-down on nonsense like this:

    “The amendment does not prevent private plans from offering abortion services and it does not prohibit women from purchasing abortion coverage with their own money.”

    Except for the fact that it does. But whatever.

    I’m glad this editorial even exists in the first place, because it does signify that Stupak is not only getting heat from all over the map, he’s also feeling that heat in some way, shape, or form.

  20. 20
    clonecone says:

    @dadanarchist: Rachel Maddow tried to get a comment from Grassley. No response.

    http://www.oneiowa.org/news-ev.....no-comment

  21. 21
    gex says:

    Again, I marvel at the fact that anyone takes moral guidance for an organization that has institutionalized the rape of children over the last decades/centuries and have put their very great wealth behind hiding/protecting predators while at the same time creating more and more victims while denying them justice.

    Frankly, if the Catholic Church comes out against anything, I have to reevaluate to make sure I’m not actually for that thing.

  22. 22
    gex says:

    @gex: Woo! Look at me with my fancy edit/delete options. My browser has been blessed!

  23. 23
    The Populist says:

    Fuck yes John! I am so f-ing tired of these busy bodies from C-Street ignoring the needs of the many for the money that the few give them.

    They hate compromise and they hate people. If these people really honored Jesus they would stop with the morality b.s. and lead by example…

  24. 24
    wraithyouth says:

    As someone who did a lot of canvassing for both Stupak (unfortunately) and Obama up here, let me put it this way: We couldn’t wear Obama gear when knocking doors. If people responded favorably to Stupak, we could pivot around and try to convince them to LOOK at Obama literature. Even if it were possible, primarying Stupak from the left would be a fool’s errand – if you beat him, you’d probably lose the general…

  25. 25
    Comrade Scrutinizer says:

    I keep hearing this kind of thing:
    __

    Have we figured out who to send money to to primary this clown?

    How often do these primary challenges work out? (Thinking about Lieberman, NY-23, etc.) Seems to me that people like Stupak and Reid get elected when a candidate further to the left wouldn’t. That’s certainly the case here, where someone like Shuler can get elected and Patsy Keever can’t.

  26. 26
    geg6 says:

    @wraithyouth:

    “Even if it were possible, primarying Stupak from the left would be a fool’s errand – if you beat him, you’d probably lose the general…”

    And so the difference is?????? Defeating a C Streeter, even for a Republican, would seem to me a good deed any way you look at it.

  27. 27
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @wraithyouth:

    Even if it were possible, primarying Stupak from the left would be a fool’s errand – if you beat him, you’d probably lose the general…

    Given his performance on the Democratic platform’s signature issue, I ask you:

    What would be the difference?

    @geg6:

    Defeating a C Streeter, even for a Republican, would seem to me a good deed any way you look at it.

    There is much truth here.

  28. 28
    sal says:

    wraithyouth is right. I’m in his district and nobody’s going to primary him. R’s have represented this district in the past (Bob Davis was the last, iirc, although he’d be teabagged today), but why should they waste time & money trying to defeat Bart when he’s reliably votes with them? His most recent challenger was a teabag sort of guy who roamed the district in his pickup (for real, not like DA Thompson) and got no support from the R party.
    Maybe defeating him would make some people feel good, but it wouldn’t change anything. And given the history of R’s, I doubt they’d get any sort of message because a C-streeter went down, especially since someone just like him with an R after their name would be the replacement.

  29. 29
    wraithyouth says:

    @geg6:

    The American Conservative Union gave Stupak a lifetime rating of 21.42 through 2008, and a rating of 12 in 2008. The lowest lifetime rating they gave to any GOP member of congress in the state was 72.44, and the lowest for 2008 was 44.

    Yes, Stupak is doing a massive disservice to his party on this issue, and there should be consequences for it (probably in the form of taking away one or more of his better committee posts)… but replacing him with a Republican won’t help.

  30. 30
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @Mark S.: That was my first thought as well. Who the fuck gives a fuckity-fuck about the insurance companies except for the insurance companies, and, apparently, Congress??

  31. 31
    Andy K says:

    @wraithyouth:

    I think you automatically get 60 points from the ACU if you’ve got an “R” behind your name. I’ve always viewed the guy as pretty conservative. Stupak- ex-cop, ex-prosecutor- has always pushed for U.P. prisons as the primary source of job creation. That’s what this troll (the type who lives under the Mackinac Bridge, but who has roots in Gladstone) has always noticed.

    But I’ve got a question for you: Has Stupak been a C-Streeter all along, or did he gravitate there after his son’s suicide? Because I’ve never perceived the U.P. as being heavy on evangelicals, or even hardcore, Latin Mass Catholics.

  32. 32
    johnatparis says:

    Hey…I’m from his district (Go Packers!)…maybe I should set up an exploratory committee…

    Unfortunately I’m a bit far away at the moment.

  33. 33
    johnatparis says:

    The reality though is he represents well the district. Socially conservative, but for a rural Democrat, fairly progressive on everything else.

  34. 34
    chrome agnomen says:

    @geg6:
    completely agree. better to know where someone stands; the disappointment is that much the less when they vote against you.

  35. 35
    Andy K says:

    @johnatparis:

    Go Packers, indeed!

  36. 36
    bay of arizona says:

    He could be stripped of his committee positions by the rest of the caucus.

    If he needs to “represent his district” – though I have not seen any actual data – fine. We don’t need to reward him for it

Comments are closed.