Bart Stupak stuck his nose in the MI01 race for the first time, and embarrassed himself. Stupak is bumbling around, trying to win the MI01 seat for [...]]]>

Bart Stupak stuck his nose in the MI01 race for the first time, and embarrassed himself. Stupak is bumbling around, trying to win the MI01 seat for another Obama pawn, Gary McDowell. Using an answer that Chad “tool of the left” Stevens asked Dan Benishek about the War on Drugs, Stupak and McDowell thought they could muddy up Dr. Benishek’s reputation.

The Petoskey News-Review has the story and the youtube of Benishek answering the question.

The Northern Michigan Liberty Alliance put on the vetting forum, and by the way, invited Gary McDowell who was a no-show. By watching the video, you can see that Dr. Benishek was clearly speaking about less government at the federal level, putting the power in the hands of the people at the local level.

The libertarian kook faction of NMLA who held the “vetting” forum in Mackinaw City on Labor Day weekend, insisted that, (while the rest of us are focused on slowing down and stopping this administration, the greatest threat to our liberty,) Benishek answer a question on the War on Drugs.

Ah yes, the war on drugs, such a huge liberty issue when this administration and the modern Democrat Party is bankrupting the nation, bowing to dictators, increasing misery through taxation, and forcing centralized control. These guys don’t seem to pay attention too well, they believe that we are already so far gone, that this Obama thing is nothing new. Tools of the Left.

However, in order to show how out of touch the Democrats are on the issue of constitutionality, Chad “the tool” may just have been helpful to the Right for once.

Let’s remember that Stupak took an oath to uphold the Constitution 9 times in the last 18 years, and he spit on it every year. I wrote about Stupak last November in, “Bart Stupak doesn’t agree with Madison and Jefferson,” where I point to Stupak’s interview with Frank Beckmann, that “not everyone agreed with Madison and Jefferson,” and used it as a reason why he believes Obamacare will be held up as Constitutional by the Supreme Court.

From that post:

Things get a little contentious here, and this is why I like to listen to Beckmann. He rightly points out that no where in the Constitution does it allow for the government to take over the health care industry. Bart insists it does say so in Article I, Section 8 with the words the left have been using to bring the country to point it is today with rampant socialism and welfare programs that have done nothing but create a dependent society-”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to…provide for…..general welfare….”

When Frank tells Stupak that we must look for the intent of the signers like Madison to understand the article, Bart says, “not everyone agreed with Maderson (sic) and Jefferson,” and that if the government agrees that it is in the best interest of the nation, it is constitutional. Frank replies:

Congressman with all due respect, if you are promoting that, with all due respect, I think you are promoting tyranny. You are not following the constitution which says, that there are ways to change the Constitution through amendment, and a majority vote in the congress is not one of them.

This statement befuddles Stupak to the point that Frank has to reiterate that the Constitution places restrictions on congress, and Bart still doesn’t get it, and says if you don’t agree that what the one-party rule says in Washington, take it to court.

In that post, I include the whole 17 minute interview, and it proves just how ignorant Stupak is. McDowell is no better.

Big-government-crony-capitalist-tax-and-spenders–that’s what they are, and nothing, not even the Constitution will get in their way.

While standing in 30 degree weather in Sault Ste. Marie, waiting for the Tea Party Express, I had [...]]]>

While standing in 30 degree weather in Sault Ste. Marie, waiting for the Tea Party Express, I had the opportunity to ask some of Bart Stupak’s challengers what they thought about the 9-term Congressman’s exit from Congress that day.

One of his challengers is Tom Stillings.  Born in Massachusetts, Tom is  a former steel broker, who worked his way up to that position, retired and moved to the lower peninsula part of the First District 14 years ago from Detroit.  Described as a “tea party” Republican, Tom resides in Torch Lake.

I asked Tom what his reaction was to Stupak’s retirement announcement earlier that day.

Tom replied, “Stupak jumping out today is a credit to all the people of the district, but especially the tea party people in the Northern Michigan Liberty Alliance.  Because you know what, you people are the ones who sent him outta town.  I have the Stillings Solution, which is a multi-step process.  Step One was to get rid of Stupak, and you guys did all the heavy lifting for me, he’s gone, now I can just jump right to step two.  So this is good, and I thank you people.  You did America a great service by running ol’ Bart out of town.”

I posed the same question to Dr. Dan Benishek.  Dr. Benishek is a general surgeon who was lived and worked in the First District nearly his whole life.

Dr. Benishek responded, “I think we should pray for Mr. Stupak, and I think we should wish him well, and have a good time with his family.  I think we should move on, and be happy he is out of Congress, and go on with our lives.  That what we should do, but, he needs our prayers.”

Interesting, from The Corner blog, National Review Online:

Will Stupak Be Silenced by Executive Order? [Daniel Foster]

There are whispers that the Majority [...]]]>

Interesting, from The Corner blog, National Review Online:

Will Stupak Be Silenced by Executive Order? [Daniel Foster]

There are whispers that the Majority are working on an executive order with Stupak-like language in an attempt to pacify pro-life Democrats.

UPDATE: Rep. Steny Hoyer (D., Md.) tells reporters that an executive order is under consideration.

Although, an executive order promising that the law will not fund abortions from the most pro-abortion President this country has ever seen is kind of laughable.

If Stupak is promised this by Obama, it would be both incredible and unbelievable at the same time.

But it would give Stupak the conscience to vote for the bill, even though he is relying on a man with no conscience.

Bart Stupak is in quite a bit mud right now, but he has postured himself on the abortion issue amongst his party, and his party is decidedly pro-abortion.

He is facing a primary [...]]]>

Bart Stupak is in quite a bit mud right now, but he has postured himself on the abortion issue amongst his party, and his party is decidedly pro-abortion.

He is facing a primary challenge by a pro-abortion Democrat, and since he just lost the issue of corrections resolution, it comes down to how vicious the pro-aborts will be leading up to the primary.

If Stupak votes yes on this debacle of a bill, not to mention the unconstitutional premise, he will face defeat in November, because of his promise to his constituents that he would not cave on abortion funding.

If he votes no and subsequently kills the bill, he faces being ousted in the primary, which is possible because his female challenger is bringing massive NARAL funding into the district.

So, it comes down to a yes vote with many guarantees of funding which will haunt him in the summer when Tom Coburn shines the spotlight on all yes votes and what they received to secure the passage of the bill.

Or a no vote and face being ousted by his own party.

Since Stupak is a key liberal voter that votes mostly with Pelosi, and is close with Waxman and Markey, the only issue that his primary challenger would bring to Pelosi’s House is abortion.  Which is useless in a minority.

The only way Michigan’s  First District remains blue is if Stupak votes no.

But, regardless what he votes, The Democrats will lose the House.

Last night it was announced that Bart Stupak will hold a press conference today at 11 am to talk about the abortion language in the health care bill.

He has [...]]]>

Last night it was announced that Bart Stupak will hold a press conference today at 11 am to talk about the abortion language in the health care bill.

He has been in talks with Nancy Pelosi about the abortion funding language in the Senate bill and has offered a piece of legislation he calls a “corrections resolution” which would strike the current abortion language in the Senate bill, and would have a separate vote than the reconciliation vote planned for tomorrow.  Pelosi signaled that such a vote would be taken before or after the reconciliation vote.

I’m not sure what he will say at the press conference,  but if he stands in front of that microphone and starts to talk about how pro-life he is, he will be signaling that he will not vote for the reconciliation bill on Sunday to save his butt in November.

I have noticed on the Congressman’s website that he announced a new grant,  and jobs legislation yesterday  in his district.

Stupak Announces $726,409 for Airports in Alpena, Delta and Chippewa Counties

3/19/2010 | WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) announced three airports in northern Michigan have received grants totaling $726,409 for airport maintenance and improvements.  The funding was provided by read more »

Stupak Statement on Michigan Legislation to Reinforce Public Trust for Great Lakes

3/19/2010 | WASHINGTON – U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) issued the following statement in support of Michigan HB 5319 to reinforce that the Great Lakes and the groundwater that feeds them read more »

Stupak Attends Signing of Targeted Jobs Bill

3/19/2010 | WASHINGTON – Legislation marking another step forward for job creation was signed into law Thursday at a White House Rose Garden ceremony.  U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee), a vocal read more »

There is continued speculation in the district that he will announce that the Rogers City Wolverine Clean Energy Venture will qualify for the second round of federal carbon capture funding to ease a  path toward the air quality permit that is delayed now for 2 1/2 years to be granted by the state.

These funding grants for his district, along with a no vote on the health care reform bill could help him keep his seat this fall.

That way, he steers clear of any funding spotlight that Tom Coburn, a fellow congressman has promised to shine on any Democrat yes vote on the reconciliation bill.

However, if he thinks he has a deal with Pelosi to accept his “corrections resolution” and he votes yes to the reconciliation bill because of it, 40 Democrat female pro-abort legislators have threatened to hold out on the reconciliation bill because of the lack of abortion funding in the bill.  Which of course debunks the idea the the Senate bill has no abortion funding in it as Catholics United has been claiming in television ads heavily blanketing the district.

I don’t know, but my guess is that these female legislators will not hold out if Pelosi promises them that the “corrections resolution” will either not pass or not be left in the final bill to be signed by President Obama.

Stupak’s proposed extra legislation faces parliamentary problems, so the idea that his “corrections resolution” will hold or even be voted upon is quite questionable.

Then of course, the act of voting on the reconciliation amendment package is put in the place of actually voting for the Senate bill.

The House doesn’t want to vote for the Senate bill, it will be said to be “deemed passed” with the vote on the amendment package.

Which of course is unconstitutional.

Further, if the President signs a bill on Sunday because reconciliation passes, it will be the Senate bill without the amendment package, because the Senate would have to then vote on the amendment package from the house.

So, if as a result of voting in favor of the reconciliation package on Sunday, Stupak gets a promise that there is no abortion funding in the bill he voted on, he will have neither voted on a bill, nor taken the abortion funding out of it.

And, if the President signs a bill on Sunday, it will be unconstitutional.

Update: Stupak’s Press Conference to be held off indefinitely?

T @gretawire: Just in: Congressman Stupak just cancelled his press conference..

Stupak’s Presser postponed.

Update: Stupak brought down by Congressional Maneuver?

Update: Stupak is “Finished with Pelosi”

Posted: Mar 10, 2010 4:51 AM EST Wednesday, March 10, 2010 4:51 [...]]]>

From one news source:

Stupak faces Democratic challenge over abortion

Posted: Mar 10, 2010 4:51 AM EST Updated: Mar 10, 2010 4:51 AM EST

Rep. Bart Stupak

WTOL.com Top Stories

Fremont woman recounts chilling tale of grandchild’s rescue from fire

Spate of fires has Toledo officials looking for arsonist

Toledo City Council holds public meeting on budget woes

Massa denies he sexually groped male staffer

Stupak faces Democratic challenge over abortion

CHARLEVOIX, Mich. (AP) – A Michigan congressman who’s been fighting for stricter curbs on abortion in federal health care legislation is being challenged in the August Democratic primary.

Connie Saltonstall of Charlevoix says she’ll run against Rep. Bart Stupak of Menominee. Saltonstall says Stupak has “a right to his personal religious views” but says it’s “reprehensible” to let them block health care reform.

Stupak’s office declined immediate comment Tuesday. Stupak won approval of an amendment to health care legislation banning use of federal funds for abortions. He says abortion limits in a Senate-passed version of the legislation are too weak.

Saltonstall is an ex-teacher and ex-Charlevoix County commissioner.

There has been a Primary Stupak drive on Facebook as well.

Stupak’s Tawas Town Hall

[First, S- means Congressman Stupak; Q()- means questioner(number)]

As we walked in, we listened to Stupak describing his Stupak/Pitts Amendment and he delivered [...]]]>

Stupak’s Tawas Town Hall

[First, S- means Congressman Stupak; Q()- means questioner(number)]

As we walked in, we listened to Stupak describing his Stupak/Pitts Amendment and he delivered his signature line, “No Public Funding for Abortion.”

Applause.

S- But there is nothing that prohibits an individual from buying abortion coverage.

(He was showing a slide presentation that showed the difference between the House bill and the Senate bill.

The House bill covered 36 million uninsured.

The Senate bill covered 31 million uninsured.

The House bill takes effect in 2013, the Senate, 2014, and only the House bill provides a public option.)

S- We eliminate the insurance company’s anti-trust deal, only insurance companies and major league baseball benefit from anti-trust laws.

The House bill has no federal funding for abortion, the Senate does, but “states can opt out if they want to.”

S- President Obama’s plan eliminates Nebraska’s sweet heart deal, although Louisiana’s was allowed to be kept in.

(Congressman Stupak expressed a dislike of Obama’s effective date of his plan-2018.)

S- So, here’s what we have, the house bill 3962 passed November 7, you have the Senate bill 3590 passed Christmas Eve, and on February 22nd, you have (Obama’s) eleven page summary.

To date, no legislative text for a final bill exists.  Hopefully, this week they show us something.

To pass this health care, we’ll rely at least in part on a process called reconciliation which requires only a majority vote in the Senate.

Bush tax cuts were done through reconciliation, SCHIP, Medicare Advantix, and COBRA were all done through reconciliation.

So, President Obama wants to pass a bill by Easter, we’ll see.

The President is twisting arms, for instance, me, for the second time in my eighteen year career, I was asked last week if I wanted to go watch the Russian Opera and I could sit in the President’s Box at the Kennedy Center.

(Gasps.)

The Blue Dogs were taken down to the White House, and Obama told them to vote for his health care plan.  I’m not a Blue Dog, I’ve always been accused of being a Blue Dog, but I’m not a Blue Dog.

Again, reconciliation……March of last year in the President’s proposal, he had a line in there that said, 340 Billion over 10 years for the health care, and it was a number that would never pay for healthcare,….with that amount of money, but what it was, it was a place holder.  That’s how he’s using reconciliation, that idea was hatched a year ago.

(The slide presentation was over, and the Congressman opened the floor to questions.)

Q1- You were talking about the quality and quantity of healthcare?

S- Right.

Q1- Shouldn’t tort reform come in there somewhere?

S- Sure, (went on to talk about malpractice insurance.)  But the President put four more proposals on the table Thursday, one was malpractice reform, he set aside 50 Million dollars to find out what works, how do we do it.  Second, reimburse the doctor’s more, third, the Federal Government would pay more, States would have less of a share, and four, purchase across State lines.

Q2- I support health care reform, but I do not support this bill.  (Applause)  You guys are doing too much, trying too hard to do everything at one time, just when the American economy is in a nose dive, and I predict this,….any of you that support this bill will be sent packin-the polls bear this out.

You sent out a brochure recently regarding jobs.

S- Sure.

Q2- And you listed over 200 jobs in a bio-processing plant in Alpena.

S- In Alpena, yup.

Q2- Those jobs don’t exist.  The design of the facility doesn’t exist.

S- The problem is that the formal name of the conglomerate of this American Processing Inc. is DPI- Decorative Panel Incorporated.  So, between the jobs that have been preserved by taking and pressing the fluid in the process they are using has created 218,000 jobs, oops sorry, 210 jobs.

And if you read it, it says, it says that these are jobs that they have created or retained.

Now, you tell me that this grant isn’t going to help DPI keep their jobs up there.

Q3-  I’d like to see a show of hands here, who supports this bill?

(1/3 of room raised their hands.)

S- There are three bills in play.

Audience member- It’s not written yet.

S- The President has put some pages out last Monday and another set on Thursday.  Now, these bills have to be reconciled.  Some parts may be from the House bill, some may be from the Senate bill, some parts will be the President’s recommendation.

Q3- Sorry, let me be like in a court and I’ll rephrase the question.  How many people think that the government which has never ever had a program that has been funded and performed to actually lower the cost of anything, how many think they should take over their health care.

(1/3 of room raised their hands.  Some laughter.)

S-  There is a program that does it very well, it’s called Medicare.

Q3-  Everything you are doing is, we have to do this and we have to do this now.  What we are doing is bankrupting this country.  You guys can pass this bill if you want, but there is no money for it, and nobody is addressing this, you talk about
Billions of dollars as if it’s nothing.

S-  I believe we need health care in this country.  Insurance premiums are going up 70-80% and wages are going up 4.6%, we just can’t afford it.

Now, we’re all in this together.

Every product we make costs more money because there’s health care in there.

We have to get rid of that, it is straining your family budget, the State budget, the Federal budget.

Audience member- I get my health care from the government, and it’s the best I’ve ever had, it’s been a godsend.  It’s from the VA.

Audience member- I would just like to let the young lady know that the government does not get in between you and your doctor, the insurance companies do.

Q4- If I do not choose to use formal health care, I am more into holistic, am I going to be mandated to participate in the government plan, even though I don’t use it?

S- Holistics is in there.

Q4- Where?

S- I don’t know the exact page, Holistic Medicine, especially traditional by tribe is recognized in there.

Q4- I’m not from a tribe.

S-  If you don’t, yes, you will have to pay a 2.5% tax.

(expressions of disdain)

Look, we’re all in this together, we’re all gonna pay.

Audience member- That’s Socialism!

S-  Look we all want health care to be there when we get sick in order for it to be there, we all gotta pitch in.

S-  If you get hurt and that ambulance comes to get you, it just can’t be there when it’s convenient for us.

When the small businesses came before the committee, they said, “Our number one concern is healthcare, we can’t afford it.”

I talked to a number of employers today and they said do something with it, give us how we are going to do this.  We wanna be able to have health care so we can keep our employees.

Q5-  And how did health care become part of the employer’s responsibility?

S-  How?

Q5- Yes.

S-  In World War II, instead of giving wage increases they started a program to include healthcare.

Q5-  Government Intervention!

S-  but let’s go back to even before WWII, if you want, President Teddy Roosevelt was one who first proposed healthcare in this country.

It affects all of us, it affects your policy, it affects…

Q5-  Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority to do this?

S-  Article I Section 8 says if the majority of people come together for the general welfare of the country, (arguing) look, you won’t find taxes in there either.

If we ever pass health care, there will be a lawsuit to challenge the Constitutionality of it, that’s why we have the checks and balance, I’ll bet you a dollar to a donut right now, that if we pass healthcare, the majority of the House members say yes, when the Senate says yes, and the President signs it, I bet you the court will rule and decide that this is in the best interest of the country and it’s Constitutional.

Before we have a chance to vote on the legislation as I always do, I’ll read it, I’ll understand it, and I’ll try to make the decision that is in the best interest of our district and our nation.

Q6-  When it comes down to the Senate bill and  reconciliation, if your abortion language is not in it, are you gonna stick to your guns?

S- Yeah, I’ll stick to my guns, but,..um, it’ll be worked out.  We’ll get it worked out, we had it worked out before you ever heard of the Stupak Amendment, it was worked out and then they reneged on it.

I’m taking the position that we’ve not had public funding for abortion, the President said on either September 8th or 9th, that there will be no federal dollars for abortion, let’s keep it that way.

No one can say I’m expanding it, no one can say I’m restricting it, let’s keep current law.

The last time the House and Senate voted on it, December 14th, President Obama signed it on December 16th, which was a Labor appropriations bill, which says under section 507, section 508, there shall be no public funding for abortion programs except to save the life of the mother, rape or incest.  Since they just signed it, everybody was okay with it 90 days ago, put it in the bill and we can be done.

But, I’m still waiting for them to answer that.

Q7-  I was wondering how you derive the dichotomy between the 450,000 people that would die annually without health care, and abortion?  How do you deal with that?

S- How do I deal with it?  45,000 people each year die because they lack health insurance and access to medical care um, they are born, they are into this country, they had an opportunity at life, how do you deny someone that right?  So, I think it’s consistent.

This bill, I’ll probably get a couple of people cranked at me, this bill is really a Right to Life Bill.  If you are having a child right now, what do you get on Medicaid?  You get 2 appointments before the child is born and one after, and that’s our prenatal health care, which most babies are born on right now.

So, I think this bill is a pro-life bill, it promotes preventive, healthy living, it promotes healthy babies being born.

Audience member- What bill are you talking about?

S- House bill.

Audience member-  But that’s not in play right now.

S- Yeah, it’s still in play, the Senate can pass it tomorrow if they wanted to, but they don’t want to, they wrote their own bill.

When the final bill is written, remember, we have 3 scenarios here, the House bill, the Senate bill, and the President’s proposal,  and I think the final bill will be a combianation of the three.

The Chairman of the Democratic Party of Antrim County-  The people of Antrim county are hot because they are afraid they will not get health care.

I suggest everyone read The Healing of America by T.R. Reeves,…. who comes to one conclusion, two countries that passed health care in 1994 the same year that we defeated it, he comes to the conclusion that the most important thing to do today is to get everybody into a health care system.  Once they are in the system, then we all have a political interest in improving it later on.

But, we have a strong smell around the bill because it doesn’t feature all we would like to have, but we recognize that having a bill is more important than solving every nuance that is put into it.

I need to also tell you that our concern with you as representative will be over the Hyde Amendment, you know that, I know that,

S- I know that.

Chairman- And our concern is that the Hyde Amendment isn’t current law, why do we have to stand for redundancy rather that just do the bill, we can have improvements later on.

I do know that the Hyde Amendment requires annual approval, so it’s a political consequence of that, but please don’t let it go down in defeat over a single issue.

S-  The reason why we need the Hyde language in this, the annual appropriation, once you pass this health care, doesn’t apply.

Once we enact this, it’s a law, separate and distinct, how we fund that from time to time is different, but it’s a free-standing bill.
The courts have ruled, in Michigan’s case it’s Engler vs. Planned Parenthood, that if you are silent on the abortion issue, therefore, it is covered.

So, those of us that have worked on this issue for a very long time as I have, if we don’t put it in, then abortion is covered using tax payers money.

Back in June, a hundred or so of us in the House wrote the Speaker and said, abortion is a polarizing issue, if you are serious about health care, leave it out of there, we’ll work our way through this.

Bart Stupak cannot inject abortion….

We stripped the Capps language and I put forth the Hyde language and we won in committee until the chair said, we’re gonna do a revote, let me get some more people in here so we can keep this amendment.

Then, …. November 6th, I got in, negotiated with the Speaker, Chairman Waxman, Hoyer, we had a deal, we were going to roll the dice a compromise that principle so we could move health care along.

So, I’m not trying to inject anything, pro-choice forces thought they had the upper hand on this issue, all they had to do is know their legislative history that every time they have this vote, a majority of the American people feel strongly–No Public Funding for Abortion.

We can’t restrict the right, we can only restrict how it’s going to be paid for.

Do I think we’ll work it out?  I had a good conversation with Chairman Waxman.  I gave him those 8 pieces of legislation, said, tell me which one you want, I’ll put it underneath there, “it’s under this act,”  I’ll put that language in there, end of discussion, it’s resolved.

My regret is, the debate we should be having on healthcare has become overshadowed by this abortion deal, that’s why in June we said, don’t bring it up, but for whatever reason, they couldn’t help themselves, they put it in there.

Q8-  Nancy Pelosi said last week that there is no abortion funding in the bill, and then she said that it can’t be taken out through reconciliation because that’s only a budgeting process.

S- Right.
Q8- Seeing as how you’re a Catholic, I’m a Catholic, we’re all Catholics, you know, me, you and Nancy, how do you think that you’re going to win the abortion issue when the Vatican said in October 2008 that the Democrat Party is the Party of Death because of it’s pro-abortion stance?

How do you think that a majority of Democrat Catholics vote pro-abortion every time, and you are up against the most pro-abortion President this country has ever seen?

S-  Okay, a couple of things, it can be done through reconciliation, remember I said reconciliation was used for SCHIP…

Q8-  But isn’t it up to Nancy?  She’s the leader.

S-  Well…

Q8-  She’s the one twisting arms.

S-  it….She didn’t wanna have my amendment, we got my amendment, we passed it, okay.

Now, in SCHIP, 1997, we had the language in there, no funds for abortion, that was through reconciliation, in 1995 again on a budget vote again, through reconciliation, on medicare…

Q8-  You’ve said this before and I hear you, but, that’s not what she said.

S-  Well there are rules, and as I’ve constantly said, where there’s a will, there’s a way.  If we wanna get this thing passed, and if we have to have that Hyde language in there to get it passed we’ll find a way to get there.

Q8-  However, there is 73% of the American people want you guys to either start over, or not touch this bill.

S-  Congress has been starting over for 98 years.

Q8- I think you should start over again.

S- Again, we will continue to reach out to Republicans, they have some good ideas such as malpractice reform, other things.  We’re not gonna start over.  This is the closest we’ve come, you are probably gonna see an up or down vote in the House, in I betcha the next 2-3 weeks and we’ll move the process along.  I think it’s an issue no doubt that divides the country, everyone is uncertain with what we are doing.

It’s hard for me to give you a definite answer because there is 3 different bills.

So anyway, we’ll put together a bill and run the trap lines on it.

Q8- Oh, and as far as public funding for abortion, why did you vote against defunding Planned Parenthood last July?

S-  Planned Parenthood, believe it or not, does health care.

Q8-  And abortion.

S-  And with those monies, there is a restriction they cannot use it for abortion, and in Northern Michigan,

Q8-  They are the reason we have abortion in this country…

S-  Yes, but they can’t….there is 3 or 4 or 5 Planned Parenthood clinics in my District, and they provide quality health care.

Q8- And abortions.

S-  No they don’t

Q8-  Yes they do.

S-  Not in the First Congressional District.

Q8-  Oh, alright.

S-  They cannot use federal funds to perform abortions that’s always been the restriction, they’ve abided by that restriction.

Q8-  Okay, I’ll check it out.

S-  Now, next time, I might not vote the same way….just kidding.

Somebody else have a question?

Q9-  A lot of this looks like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The things that are the most brazen expenses aren’t even mentioned, you know, such as, a sense of entitlement by much of the public, “I want it now, I want it by you, and I want it last week, and I don’t wanna pay for it.”

We have been so spoiled that we always think there will be some way to fix our problems.

Let’s say you have a patient with colon cancer, has surgery, does well, I have one with colon cancer, has complications after surgery, you can’t judge what quality of care was given, necessarily by that outcome.

And then the no co-pay for prevention that you describe,

S-  For Medicare, right.

Q9- It’s been absolutely irrefutably demonstrated in numerous research that patients that invest monetarily for their care, they have a better outcome in treatment and take recommendations more responsibly.

(Applause.)

S-  There are a number of plans in this legislation mostly for seniors where we do wanna do screening so we can catch it earlier.

For every dollar, you invest in prevention, you save 10 dollars.

Q9-  But you know, a family physician charges about 300 dollars for a colonoscopy, a Colorectal Surgeon charges 2000, it’s down there at the grass roots that so much of the money is being misused or not used where it would be most effective.

S-  That’s why we want to go to quality based outcomes.

Q9-  How can you judge the quality of care?

S-  There are ways to do it, there are a number of strategies that have done it…..

The Institute of Medicine, IOM, there are numerous studies that show you use quality, in fact, there are knee surgeries right now under Medicare based on quality system as opposed to quantity, so,
Q9-  You can’t base quality on necessarily an outcome.

*************************************************************************************************************

We left.  We were there for an hour, and it was wrapping up.

The Hyde Amendment right now restricts funding of abortion in any spending bill for Health and Human Services. Since this bill is not a spending bill for Health and Human Services, the Hyde Amendment does not [...]]]>

The Hyde Amendment right now restricts funding of abortion in any spending bill for Health and Human Services. Since this bill is not a spending bill for Health and Human Services, the Hyde Amendment does not automatically apply.

Stupak, through the amendment process, inserted Hyde language in the House bill. Then he voted for the bill.

The bill then went to the Senate, was changed and passed.

President Obama came up with a different plan and wanted a new vote in the Senate.

Both the Senate bill and Obama’s ‘bill’ provide for federal funding of abortion.

The bill Stupak is referring to right now provides grants to clinics that offer abortions.

It also requires a monthly premium of not less than a dollar per month for abortion coverage.

It refuses to clarify “preventative services” as abortion, leaving the ambiguity that will allow abortion.

Central to the bill is funding for FQHC’s or community health centers that provide abortions.

House Leader Nancy Pelosi insists there is no abortion funding in the bill.

Pelosi also insists that under reconciliation, abortion cannot be addressed because reconciliation is a budgeting process.(The Heritage Foundation)

However, we have a false choice. Stupak wants us to focus on abortion, instead of this monstrous power grab.

The people of the First District are self-sufficient rugged individualists.

This trick by Stupak cannot be allowed to continue to frame this debate.

Despite suggestions that Stupak is raising a fuss over abortion funding in the bill, his constituency is more heavily concerned with the bill itself. Not that the First District isn’t overwhelmingly Pro-life, it is, but Stupak is falsely emphasizing the importance of abortion wording in the bill.

The First District is more concerned with the bill itself and it’s constitutionality.(WSJ)

If there is any doubt that Stupak is not that firm on his assertions, watch this youtube clip. It was taken last year before Stupak was able to amend the House Bill, at a Cheboygan Town Hall.

Stupak: “Let’s say we get 217, and we lose, would I vote against health care? If I had the chance to vote my conscience on it, I probably would not. I probably would still vote for the Health Care Bill at the end of the day.”

Man: “Um, I guess it still bothers me that at the end of the day, yes you would have said your voice, but the one more voice would be that vote…even though I didn’t get what I wanted, I still am going to still vote in favor of tax-payer funded abortions.”

Stupak: “But, isn’t that the way our country works?”

Okay, can you see now? I have been watching Michigan become more interested in primary candidates and since they are afraid to seem like they are against Stupak’s abortion message, that they forget about the monstrous power grab!

Further in the clip:

Stupak: “I don’t want to see abortion in there, and I got to get a chance to vote on that somewhere along this process. But that doesn’t mean, and if I lose that vote, that doesn’t mean I vote against the whole bill.”

Man: “It doesn’t.”

Stupak: “No.”

(Boos)

Stupak goes on to reiterate for the third time.

I’m in the First District, and no matter what Stupak says, people here, in general DO NOT like unprincipled behavior in their representatives.

By the way, Stupak has a town hall in Tawas tonight. He doesn’t allow video or audio recording, I wonder why?

I’ve been noticing a lot lately that people are growing complacent on the Socialized Medicine Bill, and I thought we could use a little reminder of how unprincipled Bart Stupak is.

Despite suggestions that Stupak is [...]]]>

I’ve been noticing a lot lately that people are growing complacent on the Socialized Medicine Bill, and I thought we could use a little reminder of how unprincipled Bart Stupak is.

Despite suggestions that Stupak is raising a fuss over abortion funding in the bill, his constituency is more heavily concerned with the bill itself.  Not that the First District isn’t overwhelmingly Pro-life, it is, but Stupak is falsely emphasizing the importance of abortion wording in the bill.

The First District is more concerned with the bill itself and it’s constitutionality.

It’s called a red herring argument.

Here is a youtube clip of Stupak equivocating on abortion.

This red herring is designed to make us complacent on the socialized medicine issue–I’m pro-life, but this bill could become law.