Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Kudos to Stupak for standing by his principles

As my regular readers may know, I believe in sovereignty or state rights. The right of the states, or of the people, is covered in the 10th amendment when it states than anything not covered in this here Constitution is left to the people to decide.

I personally am pro-life, but I respect the Constitutional Rights of other people to make decisions for themselves.

That said, you should understand why I applaud Bart Stupak, U.S. Representative from my home state of Michigan, and about 40 other moderate democrats for their decision to block any health care reform bill if they are not given the opportunity to "debate and vote on an amendment which would make certain federal funds aren’t used to pay for abortions."

I write this after reading several editorials in the Detroit Free Press regarding, "Moderate Dems seek bill without abortion funding" by Todd Spangler.

One editorial ("Put beliefs aside, Stupak") reads:

"We keep sending people to Congress because they are living, breathing beings. Most of them are not great states persons or politicians or world saviors. They are merely persons we send to be ready to vote the right way when those rare instances arise that their vote really means something. This is the situation with Stupak. Democrats need his vote. Obama needs his vote. He should not hold on to that vote hoping that he gains some political ground while destroying opportunities for meaningful reform."

So, isn't voting for principle a rare instance where a vote really means something?

I think this editorial is poppycock on the grounds that what Stupak is doing is putting his principles ahead of politics. And for that we must applaud him.

Stupak, and those 40 other moderate democrats, may want to help the democratic party, and they may want to support Obama's health care reform package. Yet, more important than politics is his desire to assure no federal monies go to the killings of unborn babies.

By stating this Stupak is not saying he is for or against abortion. He is also not saying that private funds or funds for private insurance companies cannot be used to pay for abortions. He merely wants to make sure public money -- much of it from pro life supporters -- does not pay for abortions.

No comments: