Most of us didn't question Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-MI) commitment to unfunded taxpayer abortions - especially after he talked about it for days, but shame on us. We should have known better. These are Democrats, and they know not of principled commitment. But it was not just Stupak who chased after a way to vote for the bill. In fact, in the end, Stupak was of no concern to Nancy Pelosi. She had cut bait and moved to more lucrative waters - a coalition of about 30 Democrats who late on March 19th worked a deal to support their regional areas - mainly the hospitals, and they didn't care about abortion. Neither did most Democrats, despite the lies Stupak boldly spoke to the Nation.
Republicans asked for a "motion to recommit,"...language similar to Stupak's, ensuring no public funded abortions, be added to the bill before voting. That was not going to happen, even though Stupak knew the President's Executive Order was worthless. See the roll call vote on the motion here. From the floor of the House, just before the vote on the Senate health care bill, Stupak called the Republican "motion to recommit," "disingenuous," and said this:
...it is the Democrats who have stood up for the principle of no public funding for abortion," he said on the House floor,Only 64 Democrats voted for his amendment. All but one Republican voted for the amendment. It was only due to Republican votes that Stupak's amendment made it into the bill. Henry Hyde, the author of the Hyde amendment was a Republican. Talk about "disingenuous." The myth of Pro-Life Democrats exposed. See this in the first video below.
But Rep. Stupak never planned to vote against health care, regardless of taxpayer funded abortions. In the second video from last Fall, at 1:29 minutes in, he tells constituents that if he has to accept federally funded abortions to have Democrat health care, he will do so, and still stay true to his principles. Hear the audience's abhorrent reaction.
So, who do we believe? Is there language in the Senate bill that allows for taxpayer-funded abortions? Here is the explanation:
In this video, Stupak explained why the Hyde amendment did not apply to the Senate bill:
[Senate legislation] is not subject to the annual appropriations law and therefore is not subject to the Hyde provisions contained in the annual labor HHS bill. The only way to provide Hyde protection of no public funding for abortion in the health insurance option and subsidies in the form of affordability credit found in the bill is to insert the Hyde amendment into this legislation...This from the United States conference of Catholic Bishops further clarifies: the key is that the new monies in the bill, are not appropriated by funds restricted by the Hyde amendment:
The Senate bill authorizes and appropriates billions of dollars in new funding -- outside the scope of the appropriations bill covered by the Hyde amendment...These funds are new, and over he next five years they will be provided without being appropriated in the Labor/HHS appropriations act; therefore they are not covered by the Hyde amendment, which says only funds "appropriated in the Act...may not be used for elective abortions.