It was all just hot air. 1:27 PM, Mar 22, 2010 • By JOHN MCCORMACK
Everyone, and I mean everyone, agrees that the executive order on abortion Bart Stupak got President Obama to sign is a sham--a fig leaf not worth the paper it's printed on.
So why did Stupak sell out his pro-life principles?
2:33 PM, Mar 20, 2010 • By JOHN MCCORMACK
There are reports that Bart Stupak and other pro-life Democrats are meeting with Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi has said that they are discussing a compromise that would use an executive order to allay the concerns of pro-life Democrats. The National Right to Life Committee just put out a release explaining that an executive order cannot fix the abortion related problems in the health care bill:
NRLC's March 19 letter to the House of Representatives, summarizing the seven major pro-abortion components in H.R. 3590, is posted here.
It should be noted that all of the problems listed in the NRLC letter -- with the possible exception of no. 5 (pro-abortion administrative mandates) -- would be created by and controlled by the proposed statutory language of H.R. 3590. If the bill is signed into law, these statutory requirements and defects are not subject to correction or nullification by the chief executive or his appointees, whether by Executive Order, regulation, or otherwise. Lawmakers will be responsible for the law that they vote for, and cannot hide behind hollow assurances from the President.
Prof. Robert Destro, a professor of law and former dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, and an expert on abortion-related litigation, today sent Congressman Stupak an illuminating letter regarding whether the $7 billion in funds directly appropriated for Community Health Centers, in the Senate health bill (H.R. 3590), could be or would be spent for abortions. We have posted the letter here.
What do you want to be remembered for.4:28 PM, Mar 19, 2010 • By JOHN MCCORMACK
A friend of TWS writes:
For those Democrats for whom the right to life is more than just a political calculation:
10:08 AM, Mar 19, 2010 • By MARK TOOLEY
Rehashing their lobby for a proposed abortion compromise in the U.S. Senate version of Obamacare in December, liberal Catholics and Evangelicals are now urging the U.S. House of Representatives to pass the Senate version of the bill.
6:12 AM, Mar 19, 2010 • By JOHN MCCORMACK
If there are any wavering pro-life Democrats in this late hour who need to be persuaded about how awful the Senate health care bill is, they should read two memos that make it clear how the Senate bill would allow community health care centers to directly fund abortions with federal money. The first memo (download it here) is by the pro-life secretariat at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, an organization that would support the health care plan if the bill didn't fund abortions with tax dollars. The other memo is by the National Right to Life Committee.
Hmmm.9:42 AM, Mar 9, 2010 • By MARY KATHARINE HAM
With all eyes on pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak of Michigan and the 12 so-called Stupak Dems who he says will vote 'no' on health-care reform without language that would ban federal funding of abortion, Stupak seemed to strike a sunnier note late yesterday:
"I'm more optimistic than I was a week ago," Stupak said in an interview between meetings with constituents in his northern Michigan district. He was hosting a town hall meeting Monday night at a local high school.
10:55 AM, Mar 8, 2010 • By JOHN MCCORMACK
Add Congressman Dan Lipinski of Illinois to the coalition of pro-life Democrats standing firmly with Bart Stupak in the fight over taxpayer-funding of abortion in the health care bill. Asked if the congressman is "open to voting for a health care bill that lacks the Stupak amendment," Lipinski's spokesman Nathaniel Zimmer replied in an email to THE WEEKLY STANDARD: "No. Congressman Lipinski will not vote for a health care bill that provides federal funding for abortion."
5:16 PM, Feb 24, 2010 • By MARY KATHARINE HAM
When Tim Tebow's pro-life ad ran during the Super Bowl, I wasn't a fan of it. It seemed so innocuous as to be a lost opportunity. Why did Focus on the Family pay so much money, create such a ruckus only to punt (forgive the pun) the issue when the Tebows finally came on-screen? It was a nice ad, which drove traffic to the Tebows' powerful story, on Focus' website, but I thought it should have done more.