Friday, April 9, 2010

Stupak Not Running for Reelection

Bart Stupak (D, MI) is not seeking reelection after 18 years in the house. After planning to vote against the health care bill because it will allow federal funding to pay for abortion, this guy flip flopped at the last minute, claiming that an executive order would keep the unborn safe.

Bart, I don't think you believed that at all. I think the executive order was a way you could save face while caving to the pressure. I think you know that the voters are going kick you out of office for what you did and your "retirement" is just another attempt for you to save face.

The Democrat Party Platform states, "The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. "

Sorry Bart, we ain't buying it. We see your lack of integrity. This only makes you look even more spineless. Enjoy your congressional retirement package courtesy of the voters you screwed over.


  1. Unfortunately, that "plan to retire anyway" may have been the motivation for other votes in favor of the health care bill as well. Wasn't that the idea we heard was being bandied about? " for the bill and deal with the consequences, because the bill is more important...."

    I do believe in a woman's choice (solely between her and God and her doctor), but NEVER EVER should that choice be a burden to the rest of us.

    Where is personal responsibility? Where is the freedom to be whom we are meant to be?

    I'm happy Stupak must feel the result of his choice. And I hope he is just the beginning example of how voters can turn this around.

    When Obama said "Go for it" regarding repealing this new health care law, I say, "Yes, indeed. Let's go for it.

    How do we maintain nationalized healthcare, education funding, etc, if the nation itself is fiscally destroyed? With individual bankruptcy, the shock waves hit for 10 years. With national bankruptcy, how long do the shock waves continue to destroy?

  2. I too believed in a woman's right to choose until I really, honestly, thought through the issue.

    Let's say your 5-year old is driving you crazy. He's a huge drain on you both financially and emotionally. Not only that, over the last five years you've decided that you are just not ready to be a parent. Is the choice to kill him a decision that is between you, God and your doctor?

    I would venture to guess that most people would say no, of course not. And would the boy's father have a say in the decision?

    Why is this example any different than abortion? Is it because other people know the 5-year old? God and his mother know the unborn child.

    Is it because the unborn child can't live on his own outside his mother? I may buy that argument except that many people, including the president of the United States believe that a woman should be able to choose abortion even if the baby is developed enough to live and that babies who survive botched abortions should not be saved.

    I also think widely available (and tax-payer financed) abortions lead to risky behavior by removing the consequences for ones actions.

    It hurts my heart to think of all God's children who have been killed before they even had a chance. If you don't want the responsibility of parenthood, don't get pregnant.

  3. Well said, Kristin, I agree with the conclusions you have drawn from the scenarios you put forth. You put a very apt perspective on an issue that is simple for many but very difficult for others. You are not, however, addressing the instances of rape or incest.

  4. I knew I opened up the pandora's box on my viewpoint in favor of choice. And I honor your viewpoints as the valid choices you've made.

    God does give us choice in all things, and He does address all choices in the end. Just because I believe in choice does not mean I personally would make the same choice another person would make. And as you've seen my drift, I DO believe in personal responsibility.

    By the way, choice, to me, does not mean abortion. It means choice. This includes having the baby and finding alternative homes and/or ways to work things out. Choice means CHOICE.

    I reiterate: regardless of the choices one makes, it is NOT ACCEPTABLE for the rest of us to support that choice fiscally.

    If you overeat, must I pay for your increased food bill or insurance costs?
    If you jump off that proverbial bridge, must I pay for your funeral?
    If you kill someone, must I pay for your crime?

    The direction the new healthcare bill is taking follows the above faulty logic. We need to say NO to it all.

  5. "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

    It is not my place to judge, neither is it my place to enable.

  6. ....nor accept abortion as a morally responsible choice.