So, what's all the chatter in the "pro-life" arena about the Stupak amendment to Obama's health care transformation plan?
Basically, the Stupak amendment means that taxpayer money can't be used to pay for abortions for women who are insured through the health insurance "exchange." So, what's the problem? (besides the obvious conflict in moral values between various groups...)
Some say that the Stupak amendment gave cover to the pro-life Dems to vote for nationalized health care since the amendment made it "pro-life."
But, as a friend of mine said, the "Stupak Amendment didn’t go far enough," as it didn’t address end-of-life issues, rationing, protection of conscience and all the other life-aspects involved in the long 2,000 page transformation.
Moreover, some argue, why try to improve a bad bill? Why not just let it die?
So, I suppose the question is why was the amendment offered? Maybe in reaction to the fake "pro-life" amendment offered previously. If that amendment had passed, it probably would have given same glitzy appearance virtue of the Stupak amendment, but not as good.
As it stands, it's a question of whether pro-choice Dems will be able to strip the Stupak amendment, or vote for the health care transformation despite the amendment. Sen. Claire McCaskill doesn't seem to think the amendment is a deal breaker...or maybe she does.
As Phyllis Schlafly wrote in 1964: "The strategy of politics, like an iceberg, is eight-ninths under the surface."
And she wasn't saying how it should be...but merely how it is.
