Opinion: We Stood with Stupak: He Didn't Stand for Life.

By Jennifer Hartline
3/22/2010
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

Is there anyone who will simply stand for LIFE, no matter the cost, no matter the fallout?

I'm not sorry I stood with Stupak. I'm sorry he didn't stand for Life.Executive Orders cannot trump statutory law. Surely Stupak knows this. Surely he understands how easily the order can be rescinded and challenged in court.

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) - I have had some time to recover from what occurred on Sunday evening, but I still feel sick to my stomach. I always knew there was a chance that Bart Stupak would change his vote for some reason other than securing his amendment, but I honestly thought he would hold his ground and not waver in his defense of unborn children. Senator Nelson's betrayal last year was very upsetting, but this... this is just so painful.

The trouble is, we citizens have no choice but to believe in our politicians. We must risk trusting them to be true to their word, to their principles, to the promises they've made. You and I cannot walk down to the front of that Chamber and cast a vote, so we must rally behind our Reps and Senators and ask everyone who shares our values to do the same. "Stand with Stupak!" we cried. "Let him know we're with him and we appreciate all he's doing!" He's the only thing left standing between life and federally-funded death right now! And so, it seemed, he was.

Does this make us fools now? Well, it sure makes me feel a little foolish, but I realize this morning that I did what I had to do, and what I will do again when there's a candidate who says he will stand up for the unborn. We have no choice but to take the chance, knowing there's always the possibility that we will be betrayed. Again, you and I cannot cast a legislative vote. Our votes come later.

What happened Sunday night sure felt like betrayal. Not with a kiss, but with a slap across the face and a knife to the heart. I never expected Stupak to do what he did, especially not at the very.last.minute. It makes absolutely no sense to me that he would put his faith in an order that almost everyone else agrees isn't worth the paper it's printed on (particularly given the man who signed it.) Executive Orders cannot trump statutory law. Surely Stupak knows this. Surely he understands how easily the order can be rescinded and challenged in court. He must understand all that because every one of his colleagues does.

So, what gives? I wondered if it went something like this: Stupak began to realize that Pelosi would have the votes she needed without him and his group and the bill would pass for sure. He scrambled to find some way of mitigating the damage, lessening the power of the Senate language, putting up some kind of sandbag against the tide. An Executive Order requiring Hyde be upheld... it was the last-ditch effort and he went for it. A somewhat noble scenario, I suppose, but I still would rather have had him just stick to voting NO.

Then I watched as the vote happened, and I saw that the final count was only 219. Stupak and his group made a difference, alright. In the wrong direction! The noble scenario I imagined went right out the window. The final blow came when I watched him on CSPAN as the Republicans put forth the Motion to Recommit. Stupak stood up and turned on his pro-life Republican colleagues in a way that left my jaw in my lap. He called the motion an attempt to politicize unborn life rather than protect it. He said it was Democrats who have stood up for the protection of unborn children, Democrats who have stood up for the principle of life, and he slammed his friends on the other side for attempting to derail the health care bill yet again.

He looked and sounded like a true party - line Democrat; no longer a champion of the voiceless and powerless and innocent. Just a politician who had made a deal. It was crushing to watch. Gone was the smiling, steady, principled man I've been watching all these months, and there instead was a man who seemed very defensive, angry, and defiant.

Once again, someone we trusted has let us down. And once again, cynicism and resentment grows where optimism and hope once lived. I wonder if there really is anyone left in Washington who has honor and will not relinquish it for the right deal. Is there anyone who will simply stand for LIFE, period, no matter the cost, no matter the fallout, no matter the sweet deal they're offered? When it's not politically expedient to do so, is there anyone who will not compromise?

It's good to remember that the only man who ever lived that way was our Savior. In Him, there is honor without compromise; in Him there is no risk of betrayal; in Him there is steadfast hope; in Him, there is LIFE.

In each of us, is the possibility of Judas. I know for certain I have betrayed Him over and over. I know for certain I have broken the trust of people who ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 78 Comments

Bulbjer
3 years ago
Jack Gordon, although I agree with you more often than with other people on this site, I do wish you would be a little more polite with your comments. Frankly, I'm surprised that last one got through.
Jack Gordon
3 years ago
Pete Brady: No, I'm not a canon lawyer, but I do know how to read, something that seems to escape you at times. It was Jim S., not I who used the phrase "[t]hese people, Pelosi, Biden, et al aren't Catholics." (The quotation marks in my post make that clear for anyone who is paying attention.
Pete Brady
3 years ago
It seems that one of the most salient points that Jennifer Hartline made is being overlooked. It is this: "Again, you and I cannot cast a legislative vote. Our votes come later."

We can post comments all day long, and Stupak can hold out for some kind of assurance for as long as he likes, but when it gets right down to it, if the law is directly or indirectly putting the lives of the unborn at risk, the only thing that removes that risk, is the "vote." That's putting your money where your mouth is.

All other protests aside, Stupak had the opportunity to "vote" his conscience, and make a clear, unequivocal stand for the life of the unborn, even if the final vote tally went against him. Objectively, he did not. Instead, he chose to stand on his intentions and the weak excuse of 'well, I tried.'

I distinctly recall it being said that the 'path to hell is paved with good intentions.'
Pete Brady
3 years ago
Jack Gordon: are you a canon lawyer? The juridical act of excommunication does not appear to make a person "not a Catholic." It does, under Canon 1331, prohibit a Catholic person from celebrating or receiving the sacraments.

Any person can freely leave the faith and not be a Catholic anymore. Generally speaking, that is what a large number of Catholics did during the Protestant Reformation and after.

It is not "Vatican employees," per se, that execute the excommunication process. The tribunal of first instance is under the diocesan bishop (Canon 1419). The diocesan judges are clerics (1421). A diocesan judge can make use of two consultors, who are either clerics or lay persons of upright life (Canon 1424).

With regard to what makes one a "Catholic" we can probably rely on Canons 752 through 754; in that a "religious respect of intellect and will, even if not the assent of faith, is to be paid to the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops... therefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching (752); and "All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and proscribe erroneous opinions (754)."

We can probably leave to another time what Canon Law says about scandal.
Pete Brady
3 years ago
Gerard: the term "mainstream racist" is new to me. What goes into defining mainstream racism?
Jack Gordon
3 years ago
Hey, we don't really need a lot of Vatican employees any longer! We have Jim S. who knows "[t]hese people, Pelosi, Biden, et al aren't Catholics." When we already have people like Jim blessed with this kind of certainty, why bother with the arcane details of canon law to excommunicate Catholics?
JIm S
3 years ago
These people, Pelosi, Biden, et al aren't Catholics. I'm not sure their even Theists in their heart of hearts. I wish the Bishops would start standing up to these people and deny them the Sacraments at least until they leave office. Then they can ask for forgiveness, but not while they publicly scandalize all the Church stands for every day. I'm totally disgusted.
Gerard
3 years ago
I would like to know the stand of the catholic church on the uprising hate scenarios in USA following the passing of the Healthcare bill.
I detest what Stupack did,because I am pro-life but again, I don't think the Bill is that bad given that it cares for the poor. I want to know if the church supports the mainstream racist who are feeling bad because people of color are likely to benefit from this reform.
Mike
3 years ago
Stupak is still a hero!

What part of no money will be used to fund abortions don't you get? The executive order stands. Perhaps it will be challenged in court, perhaps Obama will recind it, but those are battles for another day.

As Stupak stated, he did the best he could, an executive order is better than nothing, but will last only as long as Obama needs the support of pro-life democrats like Stupak. Undermine them now and you might as well go perform the abortions yourself.
Jennifer
3 years ago
Jack Gordon,

I guess the Partial Birth Abortion Ban passed in 2003 doesn't count for pro-life legislation?

Prev12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment