Skip to main content

Democrats for Life is Laughingstock Thanks to Pro-Abort Stupak's Deal

Democrats for Life Sole Pro-Life Group Defending Pro-Abortion Bill, Stupak

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor

March 22, 2010



Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Just one pro-life organization has issued a statement applauding the pro-abortion health care bill the House approved Sunday night and the executive order deal Congressman Bart Stupak stuck with President Barack Obama to get enough votes to secure its passage.

Democrats for Life of America is the national organization for pro-life Democrats who were once respected by have become the laughingstock of the pro-life movement thanks to Stupak's deal.

The organization's executive director, Kristen Day, sent LifeNews.com a statement praising the deal, Stupak and Obama.

"We applaud President Obama for his bold leadership in agreeing to an executive order that bans taxpayer-funded abortions in the health care reform bill that passed the House,' Day said. "We are proud to support this historic health care legislation."

"President Obama's Executive Order shows that when we work towards common ground in Washington, we can do the people's business and end the gridlock. By working with House leaders and the White House, DFLA shows how pro-life Democrats are a key and growing constituency," Day added.

Her comments stand in stark contrast to dozens of pro-life groups that have panned the executive order as a sham. Even Planned Parenthood called the order meaningless.

Day omits any mention of the portions of its legislative initiative that made its way into the Senate bill as a reason for supporting it.

Democrats for Life had been championing the Pregnant Women Support Act it called the 95-10 Initiative that merged some pro-life measures with provisions to provide support for pregnant women.

On the Senate side, when Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska decided to vote for the pro-abortion health care bill, he included some of the social provisions of the Act not limiting abortions into his pro-abortion compromise. They included adoption promotion and welfare provisions for pregnant women.

Still, the addition of the provisions wasn't enough for 34 Democrats to support the legislation as some pro-life Democrats abandoned Stupak and DFLA by voting against the health care bill over its massive abortion funding and promotion. Even Lincoln Davis, the Tennessee congressman who sponsored the Pregnant Women Support Act for DFLA in the House, voted against the health care bill over its abortion funding.

That Nelson was the lawmaker who made it possible for passage of the pro-abortion bill in the Senate and Stupak the House member who secured passage in the lower chamber is not lost on pro-life advocates.

Phyllis Schlafly, president and founder of the conservative grassroots public policy organization Eagle Forum, said Stupak's "sellout" revealed the "myth of the pro-life Democrat."

"Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn't willfully align themselves with the Party of Death," she said.

"This vote will expose the myth of the 'pro-life Democrat.' With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same," she concluded.

Comments

Unknown said…
Shouldn't you Catholics be more concerned about the pedaphiles you pass off as Priest rather than dictating to women what they should do with their bodies?

Popular posts from this blog

If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?

Did Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) say that Francis is a heretic ?   On June 3, 2003 the then Cardinal Ratzinge r (and future Pope Benedict) , head of the Congregation for the Faith, said that the endorsement of  " homosex civil unions" was against Catholic teaching, that is heterodoxy : "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimatization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil... The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions ." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons," June 3, 2003) Gloria.tv reported: " Francis made on October 21 his latest declaration in sup...

A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020

10:01pm November 3, 2020, a hour which will live in infamy, the United States of America presidential electoral integrity was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the forces of the Democrat Machine and some corrupt collaborators within the Republican Party. It will be recorded that "under the pretense of COVID, executive branch officials across a number of key battleground states violated election procedures passed by the legislative branches of those states in a number of ways that opened up the process to fraud on a massive scale, never before seen in the history of this country" which makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks before. During the time before and after the attack the Democrat Machine and its corrupt collaborators in the Media have deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.  The attack on United States has caused severe damage to the Ameri...

Could Francis be an Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?

Is it possible for someone to be an antipope even though the majority of cardinals claim he is pope? The case of Antipope Anacletus II proves that it is possible for a majority of cardinals to claim a man is pope while he, in reality, is an antipope. In 1130, a majority of cardinals voted for Cardinal Peter Pierleone to be pope. He called himself Anacletus II. He was proclaimed pope and ruled Rome for eight years by vote and consent of a absolute majority of the cardinals despite the fact he was a antipope. In 1130, just prior to the election of antipope Anacletus, a small minority of cardinals elected the real pope: Pope Innocent II. How is this possible? St. Bernard said "the 'sanior pars' (the wiser portion)... declared in favor of Innocent II. By this he probably meant a majority of the cardinal-bishops." (St. Bernard of Clairvaux by Leon Christiani, Page 72) Again, how is this possible when the absolute majority of cardinals voted for A...