Stupak redux: political lies and manipulation

By Judie Brown

Congressman Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat and the darling of many American pro-life organizations, recently wrote a commentary for the New York Times that literally took my breath away. Entitled "What My Amendment Won't Do" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/opinion/09stupak.html Stupak panders to the abortion culture while attempting to defend his ethically deficient health care reform amendment. Regardless of public statements to the contrary, his amendment would not ban taxpayer dollars for all abortions. If the preborn child is scheduled for execution for reasons of rape, incest or life of the mother, that's fine, according to the Stupak language. And that's not the worst of it.

In his editorial, Stupak provides public assurances to those who argue that health care reform proposals must include preborn child murder because such programs must protect every aspect of women's so-called reproductive health choices.

Disgusting as Stupak's remarks are, I must share a portion of them in order to make my point perfectly clear:

Under our amendment, women who receive federal subsidies will be prohibited from using them to pay for insurance policies that cover abortion. 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. The amendment specifically states that even those who receive federal subsidies can purchase a supplemental policy with private money to cover abortions.

If you were to read this paragraph with a proper understanding of the fact that abortion is an act of killing, rather than a simple surgical procedure similar to a nose piercing, you would have to admit that Stupak's political posturing is anything but pro-life. Here is how that paragraph should read, if Stupak were honest about it:

Under our amendment, women who receive federal subsidies will be prohibited from using such funds to pay for insurance policies that cover any act that would result in the death of their baby prior to birth. The amendment does not prevent private plans from offering surgical, medical or chemical killing services, and it does not prohibit women from purchasing insurance coverage that would pay for the killing as long as they pay for such coverage with their own money. The amendment specifically states that even those who receive federal subsidies can purchase a supplemental policy with private money to pay those who would perform acts that would result in the death of their child or children prior to birth.

Stupak continues,

Some opponents of the amendment have tried to argue that it would effectively end health insurance coverage of abortion in both the private and public sectors. This argument is nothing more than a scare tactic.

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.

Reading such deluded jabber sickens me beyond belief. But it also reminds me of the biblical story of 1 Kings: 3, in which two women who lived together had a devastating experience because one of them lied. To reprise the story, each of them bore a child within three days of each other. As it turned out, one of them apparently inadvertently rolled over onto her baby, who was consequently suffocated to death. This woman proceeded to sneak into the other mother's room in the middle of the night, place the dead baby on her bosom and take that mother's child. She subsequently claimed the living child was her own, and the two women wound up in King Solomon's court, begging him to resolve the conflict.

King Solomon, being the wise man that he was, made a startling recommendation for resolving the dilemma: Simply cut the baby in half and give each woman half of the body. Oh, the baby would be dead, of course, but then both women would be satisfied! This prompted the real mother to plead for her son's life, and that is how the king knew who the rightful mother was.

Stupak's double-talk, obviously designed to reassure his pro-abortion colleagues, reminds me of the mother whose child died at her own hand. She lied in order to get her own way. But at the last moment, it was her own lies that exposed her.

No matter how you look at it, a lie is a lie and telling the truth is the only way one can achieve genuine peace, whether one is a politician, a deceptive woman standing in King Solomon's presence or an abortionist.

Stupak created the slippery ground on which he is now standing; his dilemma is of his own making. Had he been honest from the start, he would have made it clear that as a pro-life politician, he would insist that there is no reason why any insurance policy, government program or charity should be paying for or providing murder as a service to an expectant mother. The problematic nature of positions such as Stupak's exposes the sordid underbelly of the political compromising that frequently occurs in the highly deceptive political pro-life movement.

The Stupak Amendment has received rave reviews from the National Right to Life Committee, http://www.nrlc.org/ the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/StupakAmendmentFactsheet.pdf and many others. http://blog.aul.org/2009/11/11/the-stupak-amendment-to-h-r-3962-maintaining-existing-law/ It has been touted as totally pro-life, as an absolute ban on tax-funded abortion and so on. It makes good fundraising copy to make such claims, but look where it is taking us! Who will be cutting those babies in half if any sort of "health care reform" actually comes to pass in this nation?

And why is a halfhearted half-measure proclaimed a victory? There is no logical response to this rhetorical question, but there is a comparison I would like to offer for thoughtful reflection.

Today I listened to a Planned Parenthood abortionist tell a young expectant mother (actually a very good actress) that her baby was not really a baby "or anything like that." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIXHrusvMDw Thanks to the creative genius of Lila Rose and Live Action Films, http://www.liveaction.org/ the world can listen to this abortionist's lie and the many other lies contained in this just-under-six-minutes-long video.

But I have to ask, what is so different about this abortionist's lie and the Stupak lie? When is an abortion not really an act of murder? When private money pays for it? When it is alleged to be needed because of rape, incest or the life of the mother?

Come on, people! Wake up and smell the coffee! We are talking about babies, not politically motivated vacuous rhetoric.

Until we pro-life Americans, as a group, come face to face with our own cowardice, our own lack of resolve, our own inability to stand for truth and never back down, regardless of what it might cost us, this sort of atrocious, mind-bending gibberish will continue to be passed off as pro-life!

And all the while, the killing and the profiteering will continue.

© Judie Brown