Memo To Jim Cooper: You Voted FOR The Stupak Amendment

Memo To Jim Cooper: You Voted FOR The Stupak Amendment

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 03:48:51 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Either the House Roll Call misrecorded Jim Cooper's vote on the Stupak Amendment, or Jim Cooper is trying to pull a fast one on Ezra Klein:

[EZRA KLEIN:] The argument over Stupak’s amendment was striking for how effectively it evaded questions of choice and focused on the Hyde amendment. They narrowed that debate very sharply.

[JIM COOPER:]They won the argument that their amendment was the continuation of current law.

(Emphasis supplied.) "They" must have held a gun to Jim Cooper's head when he voted FOR "their" amendment. Cooper appears to be part of the anti-choice majority that "they" say exists.

Speaking for me only

< Monday Afternoon Open Thread | Supreme Court Refuses to Block Execution of DC Sniper >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2024. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

Memo To Jim Cooper: You Voted FOR The Stupak Amendment | 61 comments (61 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

BTD (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by CoralGables on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 03:57:21 PM EST

has anyone here actually posted the Stupak Amendment to eliminate all the frivolous discussion of what it does and doesn't say?

If not, here it is:
If it has been posted...delete away

SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.

(a) In General.--No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

(b) Option To Purchase Separate Supplemental Coverage or Plan.--Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as--

(1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and

(2) such coverage or plan is not purchased using--

(A) individual premium payments required for a Exchange-participating health benefits plan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or

(B) other nonfederal funds required to receive a federal payment, including a State's or locality's contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

(c) Option To Offer Separate Supplemental Coverage or Plan.--Notwithstanding section 303(b), nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP offering entity from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as--

(1) premiums for such separate supplemental coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;

(2) administrative costs and all services offered through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage or plan; and

(3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section.

So are you saying (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:03:52 PM EST

as does McCaskill, that this is okay because it won't really affect middle-class woman who won't have to resort to the public option?

I mean, do you realize what that really is saying?

I am going to be charitable again about Ms. McCaskill and figure that she is so clueless as to life when you are not middle-class that she really didn't know what she was saying in giving us that glimpse into her mindset.

But I think that you are smarter than that.

Parent

: I'm not saying anything (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by CoralGables on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:37:47 PM EST

other than this is the Amendment. Read it if you wish.

Parent

Hyde amendment, as revised 1998: (none / 0) (#3)
by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 04:16:56 PM EST

link

Parent

What's the question? (none / 0) (#16)
by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 05:36:09 PM EST

It says "No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)..." Any woman who receives a federal subsidy (a fund covered by this Act) cannot have abortion-related services paid for, nor can she purchase a supplemental policy (again, because she received federal money). Nor can any insurance plan that is part of the exchange and accepts federal money (as authorized by this act) be able to cover abortion-related services.

Parent

I don't follow you (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Steve M on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:00:22 PM EST

A restriction on funds is not a restriction on the person who receives them. There's not even an ambiguity in the language you quoted.

Parent

Yes (none / 0) (#23)
by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:13:37 PM EST

If a woman receives a subsidy to get her health insurance, she cannot use her money (because it might be THAT money that was given in the subsidy - the one covered by the Act) to purchase a private, supplemental policy for abortion.

What don't you understand?

Parent

That makes no sense (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Steve M on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:29:02 PM EST

I have never, ever, ever, ever heard of a statute being interpreted that way.

If it were intended to say that no person receiving funds under the Act would be allowed to purchase abortion coverage, it would say "no person receiving funds under this Act shall..."

There is no concept in law that resembles "well, any dollar in your wallet MIGHT be a dollar you got from the government, so you can't spend any of them."

Parent

Well, (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Emma on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:53:57 PM EST

part of the reason anti-choicers want tougher language is exactly because money is fungible. Under Medicaid restrictions, states can't use Federal money to pay for abortions. States can use state money though. The "problem" is that there's no way make sure "federal money" isn't used for abortions because money is fungible. All states have to do is make an accounting entry that,out of the combined pool of federal/state money for Medicaid, only state funds were used. How can you check that?

This was in the NY Times about 3 weeks ago, I think it was a story about Orrin Hatch trying to get an anti-abortion amendment in the health care bill.

The same problem presents itself here: if you subsidize a woman's purchase of health insurance, how can you really be sure she's not using that subsidy to buy insurance that will cover abortion?

Parent

If the government wants to be sure (none / 0) (#35)
by Steve M on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:23:05 PM EST

then it would have to pass statutory language saying "no person receiving funds under this Act shall..."

Otherwise, yes, money is fungible. But if there's a court order saying I can't spend my ex-wife's child support check on beer, that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to buy any beer at all.

Parent

Well (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Emma on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:25:33 PM EST

you have to look at the intended effect of this language, which you're not doing and which the drafters of it surely are.

And the intended effect of language seems to be to force insurance policies that cover abortion out of the market.

Parent

Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by Steve M on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:54:25 PM EST

so tell me, do you think we should reconsider this idea of using the market power of the public option to coerce private insurers to do business the way we like? Because guess what, there will not always be benign people in charge of the government.

Everyone says they want single-payer. Well sure, if the single-payer system gets run by a bunch of good-hearted liberals who think exactly like I do. But what happens when the Republicans win a few elections - or the anti-choice Democrats do - and they say ok, no government funds for abortion, gee too bad the government dominates the health-care business now?

I mean, there are some non-trivial issues here to grapple with. It's not like we pass the perfect bill someday and suddenly we never have to fight again!

Parent

Wow (none / 0) (#47)
by Emma on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:07:10 PM EST

you're making a lot of assumptions about me.

Parent

Not a single one (none / 0) (#48)
by Steve M on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:15:44 PM EST

We are having a discussion. I guess my only assumption is that we share some sort of progressive viewpoint. Otherwise I have no idea what you think I'm assuming.

Parent

I don't appreciate (none / 0) (#55)
by Emma on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:45:43 PM EST

the assumption that I need a lecture on how politics "really works".

Parent

: Okay (none / 0) (#58)
by Steve M on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:53:48 PM EST

not sure where I said you did, but I guess our discussion isn't going anywhere.

Parent

Only the rights you can pay for? (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Mitch Guthman on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:17:08 PM EST

Steve M., can you please explain why there will be government provided or subsidized medical coverage for all procedures (including, apparently, faith healing) except abortion? Why is it that access to this particular procedure---and only this procedure---is conditioned on a woman having sufficient wealth to pay for it herself?

With apologies to Anatole France, I would restate Steve M's argument thusly:

« La loi autorise aussi bien les riches et les pauvres de se faire avorter à condition, bien sûr, ils ont assez d'argent. » (The law allows both the rich and the poor to have an abortion, provided, of course, they have enough money).

Parent

: Well (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by Steve M on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:24:41 PM EST

as my good friend Cream City has pointed out, the root of the problem is that not enough Democrats agree with the Democratic Party platform.

Parent

You are incorrect. (none / 0) (#25)
by steviez314 on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:22:42 PM EST

As long as the subsidy received by the woman is less than the premium paid to get a plan (that does not include abortion), she is free to use her own money to purchase the suplemental coverage.

Whether there will actually riders offered is another matter, but one of practice not law.

Parent

Aahhh Freedom (5.00 / 3) (#32)
by waldenpond on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:56:51 PM EST

The government will mandate the woman to give HER personal money to a private insurer. The woman is poor enough to be forced to use a subsidy. Because of the subsidy she does NOT get women's health coverage. 'Free to do what?' Come up with additional monies when she's poor enough for the subsidy? Really?

There is also language that will force individuals to take employer insurance. Think of Wal-Mart... Wal-Mart employees qualify for Medicaid. Under this mandate, employees will now be barred from Medicaid (which in many states provide women's health coverage.) So a woman now will be barred from coverage that provides abortion and forced in to the Wal-Mart plan which does not. 'Free?' To have her money given to a private insurer that won't provide women's health coverage?

Parent

: Ooh even better (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by waldenpond on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:22:05 PM EST

Rep DeGuette was just on and explained this in more detail. I didn't realize that those in the public option (which has NO federal or state monies and is supported entirely by individual premiums) are blocked from abortion coverage. I'm a little slow on this freedom thingy.

Parent

Clarify, please... (none / 0) (#40)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:34:01 PM EST

You said:

A restriction on funds is not a restriction on the person who receives them.

I'm trying to understand what you mean. By way of analogy, let's say the National Endowment for the Arts gave a grant to an artist with the stipulation/restriction that the funds not be used to make political art. If that artist wishes to make political art than "the restriction on the funds" has become "a restriction on the person who receives them" hasn't it?

Interpreting the language of this amendment is becoming something of an "undue burden" in and of itself.

Parent

Nope (none / 0) (#45)
by Steve M on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:54:54 PM EST

That person would still be free to make political art with their own money.

Parent

They ain't got none of their own money (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:31:34 PM EST

to make none of their political art - ergo, it don't get done. (I speak from experience.)

Parent

Okay (none / 0) (#65)
by Steve M on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 11:08:04 PM EST

but that's not the fault of the law. They'd have no money of their own, law or no law.

Parent

: You say "okay", I say oy vey... (none / 0) (#68)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 10:16:59 PM EST

And there you have your circular argument - or something involving a circle ;-)

Parent

Obama now saying (none / 0) (#17)
by jbindc on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 05:55:56 PM EST

he objects to the abortion language.

Parent

Remind me again how Obama differs from JFKerry? (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Ellie on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:07:10 PM EST

Aside from Kerry being noticeably to the left of Obama? From the link:

"I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test," he said, "that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices."

Granted, Obama uses his outsidey voice more often and blurbs more for his Twit Nation ...

Parent

I couldn't find anything in the link referencing (none / 0) (#66)
by oculus on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:01:07 AM EST

Pres. Obama discussing Sat.'s Stupak/Pitts amendment.

Parent

: Sam Stein on Jake Tapper's (none / 0) (#67)
by oculus on Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 12:30:25 AM EST

interview of Pres. Obama, including re Stupak/Pitts: link

Parent

Isn't Rep. Cooper saying he was (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 04:10:29 PM EST

hoodwinked and thought voting for Stupak amendment was really just voting for Hyde amendment?

He says he was smarter than that (none / 0) (#5)
by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 04:22:41 PM EST

while, of course, also continuing to distance himself from having voted for that other thing that most of those other people voted for:

In the Rules Committee's explanation of the Stupak amendment, they said flat out that the Stupak amendment codifies the Hyde amendment. Most people didn't realize that that's the description from the Stupak amendment's advocates, not necessarily the judgment of the Rules Committee's staff. Like many things in Congress, lots of folks did not pay attention to the details. It looked like it just continued current law. But this turned out to be very important.

Parent

: How hard is it to sit down and read (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 04:25:00 PM EST

Stupak/Pitts amendment side-by-side with 1998 Hyde? Two pages.

Parent

Interesting that a comment at the link (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 04:19:23 PM EST

is this:

One of Cooper's secrets is that he was one of Obama's health policy advisers during the campaign, which is usually unmentioned during interviews like this one. He endorsed Obama early and they're presumably close, so I suspected he would come around eventually.

If so, this puts Obama's fingerprints on the Stupak Amendment?

: It isn't a secret Cooper was an early-Obama (none / 0) (#7)
by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 04:26:59 PM EST

endorser and an advisor to candidate Obama. And torpedoes Clinton health care reform efforts during Bill Clinton's administration.

Parent

Again (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 04:38:54 PM EST

All insulting comments are being deleted and will continue to be deleted.

So many men are phucking morons (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Dadler on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 05:13:12 PM EST

And being one, I should know. Cut out all federal funding for anything related to penis or testicles (we'll call it the Cockinballz Amendment), and let's see how that goes over. Of course it won't go over, because we all know that women are subjects, men are rulers (and, please, no penis measuring jokes).

Since my rant was edited out i'll promote this. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:25:29 PM EST

I think taking Viagra out of Senators health plans could do the trick....

Parent

: What is your objection to Viagra? (none / 0) (#56)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:46:10 PM EST

It is used to correct a dysfunction of the body. I've heard some women are also using it, and that a version for women is in the making.
Even some plastic surgery is covered by insurance. It simply has to be connected to a condition that is not cosmetic, or elective.
I'm amazed by the number of people who don't understand the principles behind what insurance does and does not cover. There's a reason you probably would even support, if you understood it, for why insurance doesn't cover every single thing someone wants.
Knowing how insurance works is to your advantage in so many ways. Knowledge is Power, so they say.

Parent

That's kind of funny (none / 0) (#62)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:55:11 PM EST

all us outraged middle-aged guys with prostate issues can demonstrate on the steps of the Capitol and shout, "Hell, no, we won't go!" ;-)

Do you mean "Hell, no, we won't go!", as in we can't go potty because prostate problems are obstructing the flow? Billy Cristol (sp) has a funny bit about peeing in morse code.

Parent

Question for the lawyers: (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by NYShooter on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:28:21 PM EST

How did the Hyde Amendment pass Constitutional muster inasmuch as it is directed to one specific class, women? What if, instead of women, Federal funds were prohibited from paying for diabetes treatment for, let's say, Norwegian/Americans?

What's the difference?

As non-Norwegians can be diabetic (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:33:09 PM EST

and because the Hyde Amendment and Stupak-Pitts Amendment so cagily did not specify a group but only a health condition, perhaps it also would be useful to ask this question in terms of, say:

-- Tay-Sachs disease

-- sickle-cell anemia

-- prostate cancer

Parent

Well (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by Steve M on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:37:22 PM EST

the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment was upheld in Harris v. McRae, a 1980 Supreme Court decision, but the question of gender discrimination wasn't discussed (even though equal protection was an argument).

I'm partial to the argument but I think only Justice Ginsburg has advocated that the right to abortion should be grounded in equal protection for women. Otherwise it's considered a "fringe" legal theory but one I am personally happy to subscribe to.

Parent

: Once again, (none / 0) (#59)
by NYShooter on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:56:33 PM EST

the most valuable power granted a President....Supreme Court nominees.
Harris v. McRae was decided 5-4.
What a difference one person makes!

Parent

The diff is that rampant sexism is politically OK (none / 0) (#53)
by Ellie on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:34:28 PM EST

However, I don't know the legal underpinnings to that, apart from the oppressor's convenience of offloading the considerable burden of litigation on the victims of discrimination.

Parent

Neither in the immediate congratulations (none / 0) (#10)
by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 04:31:59 PM EST

to House members who voted for House bill w/Stupak/Pitts amendment, nor in the Rose Garden remarks, did Pres. Obama make any reference to Stupak/Pitts amendment. Seems to me he is "ok" with it as is. Although rumor has it he promised to try and keep Stupak/Pitts out of final bill.

: Indeed, it was the "finest hour" (none / 0) (#21)
by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:06:55 PM EST

for Congress. That comment of his made me cringe, as he not only ignored the Stupak Amendment but even was counting it as part of a fine job done.

Parent

"they" (none / 0) (#13)
by cpinva on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 05:15:14 PM EST

"They" must have held a gun to Jim Cooper's head when he voted FOR "their" amendment.

seem to do that a lot, on capital hill. apparently, those metal detecters don't work very well.

i keep (none / 0) (#14)
by cpinva on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 05:16:26 PM EST

wanting to say "the stupid amendment", it just seems to roll right off the tongue. probably just my freudian slip showing.

Frequently referenced today as the (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by oculus on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 05:25:15 PM EST

"sepsis" amendment.

Parent

: I think of it as the S(ch)tupak Amendment... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 05:57:30 PM EST

Parent

Cooper on Hardball tonight...catch the rerun (none / 0) (#24)
by DFLer on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 06:16:48 PM EST

didn't hear much of it, except some kinda lamenting about the Catholics' dilemma

If he's hand-wringing Catholicly over it it's BS (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by Ellie on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:12:25 PM EST

One can be personally against abortion but pro-choice and affirmatively guarantee women's right to a safe, medical procedure.

Any other mushmouth about conscience basicly forces HIS choice on women and his constituency, denying them the same medical, moral, and ethical choice and decision that he loftily gets to make for himself.

Besides which, being anti-choice isn't a de facto or even default Catholic position.

I'm from a devout Catholic family and even did hard time for it (cf). Most of my family, even the Catholickiest Catholics who ever Cath'd, are pro-choice (from a personal conscience / free will basis).

(cf) alumnus of The Holy Flying Crap Academy for Easily Startled Girls.

Parent

not to be nit picky, (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by cpinva on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:13:08 PM EST

One can be personally against abortion but pro-choice and affirmatively guarantee women's right to a safe, medical procedure.

but i don't know anyone who's for abortion, in either the private or public sector. i'm certainly not. what i am is for the inherent right of a woman to make her very ownself private decisions, about her very ownself private bodily parts.

Parent

: Thank you for saying that; I can't count how many (none / 0) (#64)
by Ellie on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 10:54:18 PM EST

... times I wish "our" side would point out that being pro-choice isn't the opposite extreme to being anti-abortion, but the bland middle.
I can't give raw numbers or even an estimate.
I do know it's slightly less than the number of times I wish someone would challenge those answering to a "higher authority" to show where they and "HA" have legal standing.

Parent

Exactly. I'm a reformed Cat'lic (none / 0) (#39)
by Cream City on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:30:40 PM EST

as they say -- I call it being a Protestant now -- but I am related to Cat'lics by the several dozens and then some. And very few are anti-abortion.

I do have an acquaintance, a spouse of a coworker of my spouse, who actually leads a large Catholic anti-abortion organization. But guess what, in emails today, she is appalled by the health care bill because the aim of her organization also is to help more women be healthy enough to have healthy pregnancies. It just ain't as simple as some in Congress seem to think (cough, Stupak, cough).

Parent

We were pro-choice activist in school too ... (none / 0) (#43)
by Ellie on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:51:15 PM EST

When the diocese was bus'ing students out to anti-choice demos to bloat the numbers, our student body showed up with our mouths and eyes duct-taped shut and carrying signs that said stuff like "Here Against Our Will" and "Stop the Raping of Young Minds".

Mind you, it was very progressive school during a much more liberal time and noisily, rambunctiously political. We're talking Central & South American, junta-opposing nuns, a lesbian separatist librarian and priests speaking out whether the no-divorce stand of the church was excusing domestic violence.

I can't believe some schmuck pharmacist can deny a woman her legal prescription for contraception and it doesn't raise a peep among our knee-knocking elected representatives.

Parent

I may have stayed with the church a little (none / 0) (#57)
by Inspector Gadget on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 08:52:27 PM EST

longer had my parish been so rebellious. Recovering Catholic was my descriptive for years. Then, I realized it wasn't actually the Catholic part that I found so insulting....

Parent

: I'm still a practicing Catholic ... (none / 0) (#61)
by Ellie on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 09:50:50 PM EST

... on the off chance I'll get good at it someday. :-D
Actually, it's in gratitude to excellent role models and mentors who lived their lives much more intelligently, gracefully and kindly than I have (but still strive for).
Short version: it's so the church doesn't blow up when I walk in and light candles to them. Miraculously, it once again didn't on this past All Saints' Day (Nov. 1). And me, in my flak jacket!

Parent

Hypocrites (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by mmc9431 on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:35:46 PM EST

Catholic politicians don't seem to have this same level of respect of church doctrine when it comes to capital punishment (or adultery for that matter). Selective religion really ticks me off. If your going to spout your faith and ram it down everyone's throat, you should at least live it yourself.

Parent

On Hardball, Cooper (none / 0) (#42)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 09, 2009 at 07:38:32 PM EST

was doing his level best to give the impression that he was opposed to the Stupak amendment without actually coming out and saying so explicitly. Matthews, as usual, hadn't even bothered to look up Cooper's vote before bringing him on the show to talk about the Stupak amendment.

Only thing I can figure out is Cooper is basically copping to not having understoodd the amendment properly without actually fessing up to that embarassment.

The yak-yak about Catholics was just using them as an example of the approach it seemed like both men advocate, ie, the Hyde amendment but no further than that. Cooper does seem to feel that Stupak goes significantly beyond Hyde to prohibit indirect subsidies for abortion, whereas Hyde only prohibits direct funding.

I dunno. I'm just telling what I heard...

Parent

Memo To Jim Cooper: You Voted FOR The Stupak Amendment | 61 comments (61 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment