Bart Stupak won't run for reelection.

[Dinner]

Before his amendment?

Yep, and he actually didn't amend anything. Rachael Maddow quoted the exact part which said no federal funds could be used to pay for or subsidize abortions. Stupack claimed that wasn't true but after he was proven wrong he demanded that no private insurance company be allowed to offer abortion coverage if they were part of the health insurance exchange; in other words he didn't even want people to be able to buy reproductive coverage as part of their health insurance even with their own money. That would have be a major new ban on abortion access so it got shot down. He settle for Obama issuing a Presidential order restating the existing no federal funding for abortions even though the bill itself also already repeated that same law.

Stupak spent months though claiming the bill funded abortions and it was a total lie. Stupak knew he was in a conservative district and that he wasn't popular so he used his lies to try to make himself more popular among conservatives. He helped whip conservatives into a frenzy and that's why they turned on him when he agreed to vote for the bill. He played with fire when he started lying.

[Dinner]

His amendment was striken from the Senate bill. Which he opposed before he supported.

DD is right. Stupak's amendment never passed because pro-choice members wouldn't vote for a huge new restriction on abortion access. Stupak wanted to make it so people couldn't even buy reproductive health coverage with their own money and that was just unacceptable to most members.

[Imran Siddiqui]

he demanded that no private insurance company be allowed to offer abortion coverage if they were part of the health insurance exchange

Are you really this stupid? Guess who gets to be part of health insurance exchanges... that's right, people who can't afford insurance who get GOVERNMENT STIPENDS for insurance. So government money is used to pay for abortion medical coverage.

[DinoDoc]

Regardless, the EO establishes systems and guidelines to be used in order to make sure that abortion doesn't get funded by the new Health Care Bill.

I'd actually like to see case law in which the Courts have upheld the President witholding abortion funding in opposition to a law passed by Congress allowing such funding.

Remember, the Hyde Amendment has not been overturned.

The Hyde Amendment is a ban that gets attached to appropriations bills and therefore must be renewed year after year. Making it actually a part of a legal framework and not at all similar to what we are talking about here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd actually like to see case law in which the Courts have upheld the President witholding abortion funding in opposition to a law passed by Congress allowing such funding.

It is quite obvious that when Congress is silent on an issue and the President decides to not fund X, it does not run afoul of the executive's prorogative. Justice Jackson's concurrance in Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer which has been cited a great deal more than the majority opinion in that case is a good place to start.

Like I stated earlier, the Mexico City Policy is an example of this.

[Dinner]

Are you really this stupid? Guess who gets to be part of health insurance exchanges... that's right, people who can't afford insurance who get GOVERNMENT STIPENDS for insurance. So government money is used to pay for abortion medical coverage.

The subsidy money by law (in the bill even before Stupak's grandstanding) could not be used at all to subsidize abortion coverage. People had to pay for that out of their own pocket. If you want to claim a subsidy in one place subsidizes another then you can use that argument against just about EVERY tax credit and subsidy in any industry in the country. The fact that the law says no Federal money can be spent on those items should be good enough but if people want to spend their own money then they can. It's very simple really.

[Ecofarm]

Obama issuing a Presidential order restating the existing no federal funding for abortions even though the bill itself also already repeated that same law.

I'm calling BS. There is no way Obama signed a repetitive EO just because someone in congress was talking crap. Presidents don't issue meaningless EOs just because someone in congress makes stuff up.

That you would believe that some guy lying in congress can force the president to issue meaningless EOs is pretty fkd up; you might want to check and see if you're retarded.

[giblets]

I'm calling BS. There is no way Obama signed a repetitive EO just because someone in congress was talking crap. Presidents don't issue meaningless EOs just because someone in congress makes stuff up.

That you would believe that some guy lying in congress can force the president to issue meaningless EOs is pretty fkd up; you might want to check and see if you're retarded.

Obama probably wanted it in both the law and in an executive order just to be sure.

[Dinner]

Obama's EO basically just restated the Hyde Amendment which has been Federal policy for 20 years.

Also, you should check to see if you're retarded if you think Stupak wasn't caught lying his ass off in attempt to posture for a tough election. Check the facts. Everything I have said here is true. Stupak lied his ass off and Obama's EO pretty much just restated the Hyde Amendment which has been around for 20 years + and which was already in the bill before Stupak went on his lying spree.

[Ecofarm]

The bill allowed the government to subsidize private insurance that offered abortion coverage. Stupak changed that because it indirectly circumvented Hyde.

[Dinner]

Obama probably wanted it in both the law and in an executive order just to be sure.

Obama didn't want either and instead it was a compromise designed to help Stupak save face. He lied himself into a corner and couldn't change his vote without some sort of face saving device so Obama offered him a meaningless restatement of decades old Federal policy which Stupak could try to hold up as a tiny shield to cover his hypocrisy and lies.

[Dinner]

The bill allowed the government to subsidize private insurance that offered abortion coverage. Stupak changed that because it indirectly circumvented Hyde.

Nope. No change at all. It just says that Federal funds cannot be spent on abortion coverage but that people can buy policies with such coverage with their own money on the insurance exchange. Federal subsidies can be used for general health care but the policy itself can cover reproductive health provided people pay for that with their own money.

[Ecofarm]

How come the government could subsidize private insurance that covered abortion before the EO and now it cannot?



Presidents don't sign EOs just because a lone congressman invents something. I'm not buying that at all.

[DinoDoc]

It is quite obvious that when Congress is silent on an issue ...

The entire point of this arguement is that accepting Stupak's original arguement as valid, Congress wasn't silent on the issue and allowed for abortion funding. Making the EO moot. Hell if we accept Oerdin's arguement that the Senate bill already banned abortion funding, the EO is still moot. It was an attempt to let Stupak save face with his constituents which backfired for him.

Hell even leftish blogs are saying that: The Stupak Mystery

PS The issues presented here aren't remotely similar to those in Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer. Truman wasn't a) inserting provisions into laws passed by Congress (remember the line item veto has been struck down by SCOTUS and I've not seen a cogent arguement that the reverse position would be accepted) nor b) was he withholding funding from a duely authorized program created by the Legistlative branch.

[Dinner]

How come the government could subsidize private insurance that covered abortion before the EO and now it cannot?

It does. There was no change.

The entire point of this arguement is that accepting Stupak's original arguement as valid, Congress wasn't silent on the issue and allowed for abortion funding. Making the EO moot. Hell if we accept Oerdin's arguement that the Senate bill already banned abortion funding, the EO is still moot. It was an attempt to let Stupak save face with his constituents which backfired for him.

Exactly right.