Breaking: Stupak The Sellout To Retire

Get ready for the Democrats and MSM to blame the mean voice mail messages he received for his retirement.

Nine-term Democratic congressman Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, will reveal Friday he is retiring from Congress, several Democratic sources close to Stupak tell CNN.

Good riddants, but the damage is done.

Stupak: There Is “no such thing” As Compromise On Abortion

And he’s not down with voting for a bill which includes the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase, either:

“Everyone’s going around saying there’s a compromise—there’s no such thing,” Stupak said. What’s changed between this week and last, Stupak went on, is that he had his first real conversation with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Congressman Henry Waxman about fixing the bill.


Stupak highlighted other problems with the bill: The president’s proposal has not been translated into legislative language and it still leaves some special deals in place. “If you look at the President’s proposal,” Stupak said, “it says that the Cornhusker agreement is out, but the Louisiana Purchase is in.”

“Members don’t have a whole lot of appetite to vote for the Senate bill as a stand alone bill–that’s for sure,” Stupak said. If you’re going to correct these inequities in the Senate bill, you better tie bar it to something. No one wants to vote for a freestanding bill so they can be accused of voting for a special deal for Nebraska on Medicaid.”

Stupak isn’t about to be hoodwinked into voting for the Senate bill with the promise from the Senate to fix the abortion language and remove the bribes for its passage at a later date.  That speaks volumes about the level of trust he has in members of his own party. 

Some advice to Stupak:  avoid the House gym.

Scott Brown’s Daughters Respond To Coakley Ad: “Completely Offended”

This afternoon Scott Brown’s two daughters, Alya and Arianna responded to Martha The Ice Queen’s attack ad in which she charges that Brown supports denying emergency contraception to rape vitctims.

“My dad would always stand up for the rights and needs of rape victims, and he’s kind, understanding and he’s a very compassionate father and man,” said 21-year-old Ayla Brown. The Boston College senior is something of a local celebrity after becoming a semifinalist in the 2006 edition of TV’s “American Idol.”

“Martha Coakely’s new negative ad represents everything that discourages young women from getting involved in politics. And as a young woman, I’m completely offended by that,” Ayla Brown added.

Arianna Brown, a 19-year-old freshman at Syracuse University, stood beside her sister and said: “My dad is a loving man who is a father. He is a husband, he is a soldier and he is a dedicated legislator. He is a man who cares deeply and would do anything for the three woman (in his family) and the other women of this country.”

The Coakley camp was mum as of the time of this post.  They must be too busy fixing the spelling of Massachusetts in the graphic of the ad.

Does Martha Coakley Only Care About Rape When Abortion Rights Are Involved?

Just as the candidates were exiting the stage after last night’s debate, Coakley’s campaign released a negative ad linking Scott Brown to Eeevil Axis Bush/Cheney/Limbaugh and falsely accusing him of voting to deny health care to rape victims.

By way of background, Coakley’s ad refers to an amendment to a bill which prevented Catholic hospitals from being forced to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, protecting the hospitals’  First Amendment rights.

The ad – and last night’s debate – got me wondering.  It seems as though Coakley only gets passionate about rape when her pet cause of abortion rights may be in jeopardy.

Some examples:

Father John Geoghan:

When Martha Coakley was the Middlesex district attorney, her office prosecuted the Rev. John J. Geoghan based on an allegation that he squeezed the buttocks of a 10-year-old boy a single time at a public swimming pool. The highly publicized 2002 conviction won Coakley widespread praise for bringing the first successful criminal case against the widely accused pedophile, a priest many had called “Father Jack.’’

But seven years earlier, Coakley, then the head of the Middlesex child abuse unit, had Geoghan in her sights and took a dramatically different approach. Back then, three grade-school brothers told investigators that Geoghan had inappropriately touched them during numerous visits to their Waltham home, and had made lewd telephone calls to them. Rather than prosecute, Coakley agreed to grant Geoghan a year of probation in a closed-door proceeding that received no media attention at all.

Because of the deal, Geoghan faced no formal charges and no criminal record.

Keith Winfield:

In October 2005, a Somerville police officer living in Melrose raped his 23-month-old niece with a hot object, most likely a curling iron.

Even then, nearly 10 months after the crime, Coakley’s office recommended that Winfield be released on personal recognizance, with no cash bail. He remained free until December 2007, when Coakley’s successor as district attorney won a conviction and two life terms.

Keith Winfield, then 31, told police he was alone with the toddler that day and made additional statements that would ultimately be used to convict him.

But in the aftermath of the crime, a Middlesex County grand jury overseen by Martha Coakley, then the district attorney, investigated without taking action.

It was only after the toddler’s mother filed applications for criminal complaints that Coakley won grand jury indictments charging rape and assault and battery.

If she’s so concerned about rape victims, where was the outrage in these two cases?

And then there’s this:

Abortion rights advocates said Coakley, the attorney general, has used whatever position she is in to advance their cause – and that her work predates her time in politics. Before she joined the Middlesex district attorney’s office in 1986, for example, Coakley was a private lawyer who volunteered her time to help minors get court orders for abortions when they could not get their parents’ consent.

And this:

“In one fell swoop, five justices set back the cause of a woman’s individual liberty and self-determination, as well as decades of established legal precedent,’’ she wrote in the co-authored opinion piece.

That same year, Coakley spoke out strongly against a ban on so-called “partial birth abortion,’’ a procedure used late in pregnancies now barred unless the mother’s life is at risk. Unlike Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court rulings, the ban did not allow an exception to protect the mother’s health, Coakley noted in an op-ed published in the Quincy Patriot-Ledger.

Here is the Coakley ad:

Stupak: It’s Not The End Of The World If Health Care Bill Goes Down

Harry Reid and Queen Nancy may want to pay attention to this before they claim victory.  

With final negotiations on a health care overhaul beginning this week, complaints about “the evil Stupak amendment,” as the congressman dryly called it over dinner here recently, are likely to grow even louder. The amendment prevents women who receive federal insurance subsidies from buying abortion coverage — but critics assert it could cause women who buy their own insurance difficulty in obtaining coverage.

Mr. Stupak insists that the final bill include his terms, which he says merely reflect current law. If he prevails, he will have won an audacious, counterintuitive victory, forcing a Democratic-controlled Congress to pass a measure that will be hailed as an anti-abortion triumph. If party members do not accept his terms — and many vow they will not — Mr. Stupak is prepared to block passage of the health care overhaul.

“It’s not the end of the world if it goes down,” he said over dinner.He did not sound downbeat about the prospect of being blamed for blocking the long-sought goal of President Obama and a chain of presidents and legislators before him. “Then you get the message,” he continued. “Fix the abortion language and bring the bill back.”

Stupak appears to be more committed than ever to block the bill should the abortion provision previously approved in the House version be altered.

Now the disagreement over abortion financing has become a game of chicken, with Mr. Stupak saying he and 10 or 11 others, whom he would not name, will vote against a final bill that does not meet his standards, and some backers of abortion rights threatening to do the same in what is expected to be a close vote.

Stupak isn’t playing around here.  He feels as left out of the negotiations as a C-Span camera.

Could abortion derail the whole thing?

Another Day, Another Sellout Senator

Via Hot Air/Think Progress

Ben Nelson traded his vote for a big (temporary) payoff for Nebraska. 

Under the current merged legislation (the version unveiled on November 18th), the federal government fully finances care for the expanded population for two years and increases its matching funds (known as FMAP) thereafter. Page 98 of the managers amendment specifically identifies Nebraska for higher federal matching funds, fully funding its expansion for an additional year:

‘‘(3) Notwithstanding subsection (b) and paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, the Federal medical assistance percentage otherwise determined under subsection (b) with respect to all or any portion of a fiscal year that begins on or after January 1, 2017, for the State of Nebraska, with respect to amounts expended for newly eligible individuals described in subclause (VIII) of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i), shall be determined as provided for under subsection (y)(1) (A) (notwithstanding the period provided for in such paragraph)

So the state of Nebraska gets a pass on paying for Medicaid expansion for a few years.  But what happens after the three years are up?  Nebraskans will be kicking in for this abomination like the rest of us.  In the meantime, the majority of Nebraskans still will be forced to buy health insurance, will see their premiums rise and many will see a decline in their coverage.  And all the while, their tax dollars WILL pay for abortions.   Just ask Bart Stupak. 

PelosiCare: Abortion? Still Funded. Illegal Immigrants? Still Covered.

Could these two issues derail the bill?

The Washington Post reports.


As written, the House bill would allow plans offered through new insurance exchanges, setup for individuals without employer coverage, to cover abortion services. But the plans would be required to establish payment firewalls to prevent federal subsidies from covering the cost. Democrats opposed to abortion call that an accounting distinction and are seeking ironclad guarantees.

A compromise measure crafted by  Rep. Brad Ellsworth, an antiabortion Democrat from Indiana, would require federal health officials operating the public insurance plan created in the House bill to hire a private contractor to pay abortion providers, thus avoiding direct federal payments. That language is acceptable to Democrats who support abortion rights, but not to many Democrats who oppose abortion, and House leaders were still working Thursday night to craft language that would win back a dozen or so of the 40 Democrats whose votes may be on the line.

Illegal Immigrants:

The lawmakers made their case in a meeting with Obama on Thursday afternoon, but they said they received no commitment.  Rep. Nydia M. Velázquez (D-N.Y.) said that the Hispanic caucus has 20 votes riding on the issue and that if the language changes, “I guess they won’t have those 20 votes.” She said of Obama, “He listened to us, and he knows where we stand.”

If Democrats pass this bill with taxpayer funded abortion and coverage for illegal immigrants – criminals by their very definition –  2010 will be a bloodbath at the polls.