Here’s how it works in dealing with Barack Obama. Poor old Bart Stupak. He’s only one of many, many Americans lied to by our President. But Bart deserves a special place among those duped by Barack Obama.
Bart’s a good, solid Democrat…except for the fact he went around Washington proclaiming he was “pro-life” and defacto leader of “Blue Dog Dems” who were also pro-life. The mistake former Congressman Stupak made, however, was foolishly believing the arguably most dishonest President in American history who assured him that, if he and his fellow pro-life Dems would support and thus make possible the passage of the Obamacare monstrosity, “the preventive care provisions would not force businesses and their owners to extend health insurance coverage to methods of contraception that may cause the abortion of new embryos.”
Here’s Bart as he discusses this aspect of the Affordable Care Act in an opinion column, March 11, 2014 in USA Today:
“As a member of Congress, I was proud to vote for the Affordable Care Act, providing 32 million Americans with access to quality, affordable health care. I was eager to see many of the reforms in the act, including its provision to lower health care costs for women by increasing access to affordable preventive care. Today, as a private citizen, I’m proud to stand with the Green and Hahn families and their corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, in seeking to uphold our most cherished beliefs that we, as American citizens, should not be required to relinquish our conscience and moral convictions in order to implement the Affordable Care Act.
“No, I haven’t changed my position. I continue to believe the Affordable Care Act is critical to reforming our health care markets and providing a critical safety net for millions, such as those who qualify for the Medicaid expansion, or for the seriously ill who will no longer see their benefits capped by annual limits. The objection to the Department of Health and Human Services mandate is that the preventive care provisions force businesses and their owners to extend health insurance coverage to methods of contraception that may cause the abortion of new embryos: new human beings. It is possible to support the president’s signature legislation and still object to the way the preventive care provisions have been applied by the Department of Health and Human Services.
“I had hoped that more of my Democratic colleagues would object to the way the contraception mandate has been applied. During the battle over the ACA’s passage, pro-life Democratic members of Congress negotiated with the president to ensure that the Act would not be employed to promote abortion. During the final debate on the Affordable Care Act, I engaged in a colloquy with Chairman Henry Waxman reaffirming that Americans would not be required to pay for abortions or violate their conscience by participating in or promoting a procedure they find morally objectionable. In response, we received an ironclad commitment that our conscience would remain free and our principles would be honored. With our negotiations completed and our legislative intent established by the colloquy, we agreed to an executive order directing federal agencies to respect America’s longstanding prohibitions on government funding of abortion and most relevant here, to respect longstanding protections for individuals and organizations conscientiously opposed to participating in or facilitating abortions.
“I was deeply concerned and objected to the HHS mandate that required all health plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives, including four drugs and devices that could terminate human life at its earliest stages…”
(Note that in his comments nowhere does the former Congressman suggest Obama misled him. It was Henry Waxman or that “HHS mandate.” Makes one think that ol’ Bart may still have political aspirations in the Democratic Party.)
And, this is why we suggest that every future edition of an unabridged dictionary add a verb to describe the act of a deeply dishonest “snake oil” salesperson deceiving a typical gullible liberal: “To Stupak; to have been “Stupak’d”.
DLH (note comments received as well)
So Don, can someone be just plain stupak?
Also, do I have this right, that to be “stupaked” one can have a degree of integrity even if gullible?
There was a “pro-choice” demonstration opposing the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision protecting religious freedom at the Hobby Lobby store in Bettendorf on Saturday. There have been no mea culpas pleading “stupak” from the Democrats in the Social Action Department of the local RC Diocese, no counter “thank you” demonstration from them, no letter from them pleading having been stupaked, certainly no apology for promoting Obamacare sans religious conscience protections. Are they then stupakers, i.e. people who stupak others?
Story link: http://www.kljb.com/story/26005214/protesters-gather-outside-bettendorf-hobby-lobby
“In response we received an IRONCLAD COMMITMENT ( my caps) …that our principles would be honored”.
C’mon Bart. Do we need to add another definition of “Ironclad commitment”, as in “firm promise EXCEPT when offered by a congenital liar (eg. Barack Obama)”.
I remember the media coverage about this like it was yesterday. I remember the “wacko birds, tea baggers, republicans, conservatives” all being laughed at by the Liberal Media for talking/being concerned about this issue. Stupaked indeed!