You made an assertion (“And the so called compassionate party is soon to vote on a bill that will provide free abortions to all on your and my dime”). You then used Stupak’s statement as support for your assertion.

I did look it up, because this is a blog and who knows what is behind people’s claims on any blog. But frankly I don’t and never did deny that people likely said that to him. I think there are people in the dem party who think abortion is good, just like I think there are repubs who think that war is a good; that sort of list can go on and on because when it comes down to it, neither party is the Church (to put it one of many possible ways). But while I’ve not denied that people said such things to Stupak, I have disagreed with your use of it to offer a blanket characterization of the bill and to impugn all of us who understand the bill differently than you, Stupak, and those who may or may not have said that to him. He is in the thick of the debate and therefore has more access to the information than you or I – no disagreement there. But he is one of many, many people with that level of information, not all of whom agree with him, so I’m not sure how much it matters how informed he is – that doesn’t really set him apart from people with alternate judgments about the matter.

Moreover, let me be clear that at least for me, being wrong isn’t about being a dolt, or stupid, or anything like that. These things are complicated and the claim (by me or anyone else) that someone is wrong on their reading of it isn’t the same as the claim that they are dolts, or stupid, or anything of the sort. One needn’t be stupid to be mistaken, after all; one just needs to be finite.

It looks to me like your intention (or at least your de facto actions) was (were) to offer up your opinion of the bill supported by only one representative’s comments, impugn those who disagree with you as morally reprehensible characters, and then retreat behind Stupak when asked to offer support that would actually substantiate your claim about the bill’s effects.

If your point was really just Stupak’s comments themselves, then that’s fine and, frankly, nevermind. But the opening sentence of your original comment suggested otherwise, and that’s what I ran with.

My “argument” really isn’t an argument at all. It’s a simple statement. I’m not trying to get into a debate about this, or about particular points of the legislation, because, frankly, if it is as you say then even the democrats in the legislature don’t seem to know it. They said what they said to Stupak, nobody’s denied it, and therefore I see no reason to deny it. If you do, feel free. I also don’t think that Stupak is such a dolt. If he thinks that his amendment is necessary, regardless of spin on blogs, I tend to believe him over the shills. I think that he, being in the thick of the debate with skin in the game, knows better than I (or, respectfully, you.)

If you want to read for yourself what Stupak said, google something like “stupak more babies born cost millions” or something to that effect. You’ll find a bunch of references, but you won’t find Stupak denying that he said it.

(1) You’re saying here that (2) someone reported that (3) Stupak said that (4) democrats told him that. So your defense (above) for why you needn’t show me where that is in the bill is that this fourth-hand information should be sufficient for me.

Sorry, it isn’t. I’m all for a division of labor because we can’t all do everything, and so (especially since I’m working on a Ph.D.) I have to rely on others to tell me what’s in bills, etc. and what is or is not a ramification of those contents, but really this is ridiculous, especially after I’ve posted reference to specific portions of the bill that contradict the contents of what some democrats said to Stupak which was then reported on and then relayed to us by you.

Your simple repetition of your own previous statement hasn’t kept up with the conversation and hasn’t dealt with the points that a) you’ve offered only a fourth-hand account, b) you haven’t substantiated it from the bill itself, c) I have made reference to the bill itself, and d) your position says more about you than it does about the ones you’re accusing of not caring about the issue unborn children being killed. You’re spinning your wheels, and failing to prove your point.

Kurt, presicely.

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

Now I remember why I don’t come here very often.

· Prohibits the Secretary of HHS from requiring the coverage of any abortion services as part of the essential health benefits for any qualified health plan offered in a state insurance Exchange (pg. 2070);

· Allows the insurance company to decide whether or not to include coverage of abortion services, including the Hyde abortion exceptions, in a qualified health insurance plan offered in a state insurance Exchange (pg. 2070);

· Prohibits insurance companies from using federal funds, including federal tax credits and cost-sharing assistance, to pay for abortion services except for those services allowable under the Hyde amendment (pg. 2071);

· Requires an insurance company that chooses to offer a plan in a State Exchange with abortion coverage, beyond the Hyde abortion exceptions, to collect a separate second premium payment from each enrollee for the cost of the abortion coverage (pgs. 2071-2072 & 2074-2075);

· Requires the insurance company to deposit all separate payments into a separate account that consists solely of abortion premium payments and that it is used exclusively to pay for such services (pgs. 2072-2074);

· Requires the state health insurance commissioners to ensure that insurance companies comply with these requirements in accordance with guidance and accounting standards set by the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office (pg. 2075);

· Requires insurance companies that offer general abortion coverage as part of a qualified health plan to provide a notice of coverage in the summary of benefits and coverage explanation (pg. 2076);

· Allows states to pass a law prohibiting the inclusion of abortion coverage in plans offered in a state health insurance Exchange (pg. 2069);

· Requires the director of the Office of Public Management to ensure that there is at least one private, multi-state qualified health plan offered in each state insurance Exchange that does not provide coverage of abortion services beyond the Hyde exceptions (pgs. 2087-2088);

· Prohibits insurance companies offering qualified health plans from discriminating against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions (pg. 2076);

· Prohibits the preemption of state laws regarding abortion (pg. 2077);

· Maintains current Federal laws relative to conscience protection; willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion (pg. 2077);

· Establishes and provides $250 million for programs to support vulnerable pregnant women (pgs. 2170-2173); and

· Increases the adoption tax credit and makes it refundable so that lower income families can access the tax credit (pgs 2400-2407).

(From Pro-Life Group Urges Congress to Pass Senate Health Care Bill; http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/pro-life-group-urges-congress-pass-senate-health-care-bill)

You might do better at being taken seriously if you could get the name of Rep. Stupak’s party correct.

This really is getting to the point of silliness. Stupak was *clearly and unmistakably* speaking in the context of fellow democratic congressmen. To deny it is attributable to numerous biased sentiments, chiefly among them is extreme naivete.

If Stupak is an honorable man, then it is absolutely clear that many of his fellow democrats want more abortion. As an honorable man, why else would he even mention it as a reason that democrats oppose the Stupak amendment?

As I said, sleep well democratic voters. Congratulations.

So your defense is that you’re offering fourth-hand information and therefore you don’t have to defend it? Okay. We’ll just leave it at that, then.

Why are you asking me? It’s the democrats in the house that have said that there will be more abortions without a Stupak amendment, and that it is preferable to them that more abortions occur. If this isn’t the case then is Stupak lying or are his fellow democrats? Or, are democrats just too stupid to understand Hyde? Which is it?