William Saunders, Senior Vice President for Legal Affairs at AUL, penned an op-ed in the Daily Caller today.
It was deeply disappointing to read Congressman Bart Stupak’s op-ed, “Why I wrote the “˜Stupak Amendment’ and voted for health-care reform,” which appeared in the Washington Post on March 27. It was disappointing because it contained an attack on the integrity of pro-life organizations, like mine, that fought to keep abortion out of health care reform, and because it mischaracterized the bill and the executive order that President Obama signed.
I have no desire to attack Rep. Stupak personally. No one knows what promises or representations were made to him in the 11th-hour whipping of House members for the vote. We also do not know precisely what his choices and limitations were, real or perceived, or the exact number of votes that were still in play. However, we do know that the final vote in the House on the health care reform bill was 219-212. Thus, on the face of it, since 216 votes were needed for passage, it appears that if Stupak and even three other pro-life democrats had withheld their votes, the bill would not have passed. Would that have been a good outcome? You bet it would — not because, as Stupak argued, pro-life Americans oppose comprehensive health care reform (many do not), but because the bill marked a massive expansion of abortion (as I will explain below).
Now, Congressman Stupak may disagree with that assessment, and he may honestly believe President Obama’s executive order was the best deal for pro-life Americans. However, for him to suggest, as he did in his op-ed, that pro-life opposition to the deal that he struck is “disingenuous at best”””and that the deal he reached is somehow significantly “pro-life”””is simply untrue.
Be sure to read the whole thing.