Planned Parenthood is generally happy with the new health care reform law.  They see having no Stupak language in the bill as being a victory.  They also know that President Obama’s executive order that was promised to give Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) an out was a complete ruse.

From the Planned Parenthood Action website:

Thanks to supporters like you, we were able to keep the Stupak abortion ban out of the final legislation and President Obama did not include the Stupak language in his Executive Order

This makes Stupak’s betrayal seem even worse as the pro-abortion groups aren’t even upset by the executive order, not that it has the force of law anyway.

They say they are disappointed because of the Nelson Amendment that made it in the final legislation however.

Unfortunately, the bill includes the Nelson amendment that will impose new and severe restrictions on private health insurance coverage for abortion for millions of women. While we celebrate the passage of health care reform, we’re going to need your commitment to fix the damage caused by the Nelson amendment — and that starts right now.

I’m a little confused as to what they are talking about because it is my understanding that the push to get the Nelson Amendment added to the Senate Bill failed.  So how could it be in the final legislation?  This is one reason (among many) why prolifers were upset by the Senate bill.  I’ve tried doing a search and other than on liberal blogs I have found no mention of Nelson Amendment language being in this bill.

If somebody has a link to a news site (not HuffPo) that says otherwise please let me know in the comments.

8 comments
  1. Shane, I don’t understand why you can’t take what is essentially a victory for your side, or at least an attempted compromise. I’d understand if what you didn’t like is the idea that the executive order can be repealed just as easily as it is written, that’s a fair criticism.

    But just because you keep insisting that executive orders don’t have the “force of law” that doesn’t make it true. What Schultz said is technically accurate, executive orders can’t *change* law, but you can’t just hold this up like she revealed something secret about the executive order, she was just attempting to explain it. I’m not seeing this meme go away, and it’s not just you buying into it Shane, so I think I’m going to do a write up about it when I get home from work this evening. But seriously, executive orders are de facto law, honest! Nobody is trying to play a trick on you. It’s Constitutional Law 201, if you will.
    .-= Guy Incognito´s last blog ..The Heart Sutra Wants What the Heart Sutra Wants =-.

  2. Guy-

    I would need some help here from others, but the problem is with the courts. When the courts are presented with a case, they will rule in favor of the wording in the law, not the E.O. An E.O. cannot trump a passed law. That would allow the President to make E.O. for any purpose he deemed necessary. I am by no means an expert in this area,only up to Constitutional Law 101, but this is my understanding of why the E.O. is meaningless in this particular situation.

    P.P. and other groups who know realize that the E.O. is meaningless. That is why in the P.P. statement they say nothing of the E.O. because they know that outside of the actual law, they have a victory for publicly funded abortions. We can count on the fact that if they don’t already, they will soon have a case before the courts to pursue funds for abortions.

    It is interesting that they are fighting against something that isn’t even in the law.

    1. @Toddhitch, the only thing that is meaningless here is the statement that the “EO is meaningless.” Nothing could be farther from the truth, and I am dismayed to see this absurd rumor going around the blogosphere that executive orders are like a puff of smoke, having absoluely no effect and just sounding good. Like that clip of a democrat speaking off the cuff on Fox (and taken out of context for that matter) is some how vindication that executive orders have no effect.

      The Emancipation Proclamation was an Executive Order. Try telling all those freed slaves that executive orders are “meaningless.”

      What is happening here is that people (like insurance companies) with vested interests in seeing HCR repealed (for reasons unrelated to abortion) are playing on a fundamental ignorance as to the Constitution and the way our government works. Executive Orders are a type of law, they cannot “change” law, but they can in fact modify the implementation of law, and direct federal agencies under the control of the executive (the president). EOs do not trump existing statutes, like the HCR bill, but that is not important here because this EO does not conflict with HCR, it merely provides additional rules for its implementation. EOs are the way things get done in the country, and when there is an obstructionist Republican minority in the Congress it is sometimes the only way things get done.
      .-= Guy Incognito´s last blog ..The Heart Sutra Wants What the Heart Sutra Wants =-.

  3. I just can’t handle it, Shane…As 28 year old woman whose mother was advised to abort me as a baby, this gets very personal. At that time, she had government health care. My dad was in the Air Force. They could not pay for an abortion, but told her she needed one. She had an anti-bodt to something in my blood and her body was attcking mine. I was “going to be born dead or retarded,” they said. WELL, I’m ALIVE STILL and the latter is up for debate 😉 . Seriously though, had she had no morals, I would not have been givent he choice to live. I cann’t fund the killing of babies.

    1. @mary, you left out the third option. Perhaps he worked out a reasonable compromise with Obama? Because that is exactly what happened!

      It’s amazing how this nonissue of Stupak and other anti-abortion Democrats working out a legitimate compromise that preserves the status quo (and this is in no way a ruse) is being distorted by people with another agenda, unrelated to abortion, to obfuscate the real issue here which is healthcare.

      The Stupak compromise ought to be satisfying to those on the anti-abortion side who are not motivated by strict partisanship. The real issue is healthcare, Stupak actually did work out a compromise and betrayed nothing. Don’t believe the hype! Read the executive order for yourself.
      .-= Guy Incognito´s last blog ..The Heart Sutra Wants What the Heart Sutra Wants =-.

      1. I agree that Stupak accepted a compromise that preserved the status quo. However, I think he did back down from his attempt to further restrict abortion well beyond the status quo. His modification to the bill could have restricted the insurance coverage of people that weren’t subsidized by government funding but happened to be in the same plans of others who were. In the end, he blinked; his coalition was breaking and didn’t hold.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Election Night Results: Big Wins in VA & NJ Governor’s Races, Loss in NY 23, Maine Smacks Down Gay Marriage

So far the GOP has a trifecta in Virginia winning the Governor,…

Chavez Shout Out to “Comrade” Obama

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez must be jealous that he doesn’t own a…

Cruz’s Proposed Bill Would Make El Chapo Pay for Border Wall

Kelvey Vander Hart: Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) introduced a bill this week based on a radical idea: getting El Chapo to fund the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

Gallagher: Social Conservatives Unite Around Santorum

By Maggie Gallagher On Tuesday night in Iowa, he stood before the…