I’ll probably stop posting on this for the time being, but I’ll leave you with this very helpful FAQ from Matthew Anderson on what just happened. Here are the questions he answers:

  • Did the Senate health care bill, which was the bill under consideration, cover abortions initially?
  • But isn’t this bill covered by the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funding for abortions?
  • So Stupak solved this with the Executive Order, right?
  • Why did Stupak cave, then?
  • Did Stupak get anything for it?
  • And pro-lifers?
  • Can we be done talking about this now?
Print Friendly
View Comments

Comments:


23 thoughts on “FAQ on Abortion and Health Care”

  1. Peter Morris says:

    Disappointed some of the links in the article are unnecessarily derisive of the President (“the One” etc.) It is incumbent upon believers to disagree respectfully in a way that commends the Gospel.

  2. Joe Carter says:

    Peter Disappointed some of the links in the article are unnecessarily derisive of the President (“the One” etc.)

    I think such jabs are aimed not at the President, but at those who would make him an idol.

    1. Peter Morris says:

      Still unnecessarily derisive, no?

      1. Peter, I linked to that site simply because it had the video. I actually didn’t read the commentary very carefully. You’re right about the rhetoric, and if you read my blog (MereOrthodoxy.com) you’ll see that I don’t go in for that sort of analysis.

        Best,

        matt

        1. Peter Morris says:

          Thanks for the response Matt. I also want to be clear that I don’t accept Joe’s claim that referring to the President as “the One” only derides those who follow him. I think those kind of references are derisive to the man and his office. They are also completely superfluous to the point being made.

          1. Joe Carter says:

            They are only derisive to Obama and his office if he encourages or accepts such a moniker. I think Obama has a healthy ego but, as I’ve written before, I suspect he is embarrassed by such fawning over him.

            And I would maintain that derision is a rather tame response to idolatry.

            1. Peter Morris says:

              Joe – you need to read the context on the blog post (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/22/stupak-youre-right-theres-nothing-to-stop-obama-from-rescinding-that-abortion-order/)

              The quote reads “while it’s true that The One could throw the order in the trash.” That is NOT a derision of the followers but the President. It’s as inappropriate for conservatives to use that terminology of Obama as it was for liberals to use parallel terminology to refer to Bush.

              I believe Christians should hold themselves to a higher standard on this question and not deride the man or those who support him. It is counterproductive to the spread of the gospel.

              1. Andy says:

                Well, Peter, I certainly hope they don’t read Psalm 2:4, then.

                If a few snarky comments written by an atheist (Allahpundit) on a secular blog (Hot Air) prevent the spread of the gospel, what impact must it have when world leaders learn that God himself holds them in derision?

              2. Peter Morris says:

                I understand your point Stan (though, I think it misrepresents mine). The Scriptures that seem to apply directly to us (not God’s activity) would be 1 Peter 2:13-17, honor rulers.

                My initial (and only) point was that Christians should be careful not to jump on the bandwagon of name calling and derision that discredits the gospel. (A point that, from his comment, I take it Matt agrees with).

              3. Peter,
                I was responding to Josh.

  3. Josh Gelatt says:

    I have the sad experience of having Bart Stupak as a rep. In fact, he is the only Democrat I’ve ever voted for, simply because of his (previously) impressive pro-life record.

    I am simply dismayed that he sold out the unborn for a meaningless piece of paper.

    1. To quote Mike Adams:

      Stupak is as Stupak does.

      1. Peter Morris says:

        sorry stan, i meant andy!

  4. renee says:

    Obama and his followers think they are GOD, in the bible when they put up the idol in the temple, didnt the lord knock it down until the pagans putting it up, stopped putting it up.

    To think we should let them get away with what they are doing is to be panty waists not christians.

    1. Peter Morris says:

      That is a really sad (and inaccurate) caricature, Renee. Both of what it means to be a Christian and of how people feel about the President.

      1. Josh Gelatt says:

        While I think it is wrong to signal out the President and his followers as believing themselves to be “god”, we must remember this is exactly what all human beings, apart from Christ, think of themselves. When someone rejects Christianity, the only other alternative is to set themselves up as the “measure of all things”. The President is a clear example of this type of thinking (e.g. defining sin as “being out of alignment with my values”).

        So, it seems odd to me to say “Obama thinks he is a god”. Sure, OK. I agree with that statement. But so does the waitress at the local diner, the girl behind the starbucks counter, and the old guy who feeds the birds at the city park. Even as redeemed believers, don’t we slip into this mindset often?

        It is good and right to recognize this sinful Christ-less way of thinking/living in the President. But certainly we shouldn’t act as if this is something new in human history. How many billions more are doing the same thing?

        It is for such that Christ died.

  5. renee says:

    The only differenece between me and you backsliding and thinking we are God and Obama doing it, is that he has the ability rain down wrath down on us. THis is why it can not be tolerated and must be stopped at all costs. He is an antichrist, if we dont get this right, will we get it right when “THE ANTICHRIST” comes on the scene.

    As I said, we are punks, this is why they step all over us. The western world is so afraid of what muslims will do if they even draw a picture of Mohammad, let alone paint him in a bad light (even if its true). But to christians, they will say whatever they want at all times, while taking all of our rights away, and forcing us to pay for it, while calling us racists, sexists, and any other name they can think of. Its disgusting and it must end. This worship of Obama is worship of the state, it is no different than with the Egyptians (we saw what God did to them for being Pagan), or even the destruction of the people in the promised land, so that the childre of Israel could have it.

  6. Josh Gelatt says:

    renee, you wrote: “this is disgusting and must end”.

    It will, which is what the whole “return of Christ” thing is about. :o)

    But seriously, you seem believe in the anti-Christ, which means you are familiar with the Bible’s teaching about the end times. Thus you know things will continue to be difficult for God’s people. Yet you seem outraged by this, and seek to bring it to an end. Do you really think if we “get out the votes” we can overturn the book of Revelation itself?

    They killed Christ. They tortured and killed the satins for ages. Many spots on the planet are still killing the saints. In the States they don’t like us, and are very open about that.

    Don’t get angry about this. Weep for them, and show them the wonderful light of the Gospel

  7. Josh Gelatt says:

    er….read “satins” as “saints”. LOL

  8. Dwight says:

    For those who are beating up on Mr. Stupak I would like to pose a question. Health Care Reform was probably a fait accompli without the vote of Mr. Stupak. It seemed like some of those that were sticking with him were peeling off and that some who ended up voting against the bill would have changed their vote if needed. So if the language Mr. Stupak previously submitted in the House bill would have ensured that no federal dollars would be used to pay for abortions, why are not the Senate Republicans being skewed for not agreeing to allow that amendment to be made without jeopardizing the whole bill? I know they did not want the HCR bill to succeed but they would rather have the purity of voting against HCR vice voting for the Sanctity of Life of the unborn? It appears that they were using the abortion issue more as leverage when it all comes down to it, leverage in the end that failed. So instead of codifying the Hyde Amendment or at least making it difficult for pro-choice Senate Democrats, they settled for being able to say they voted against the HCR bill. A huge price for a political gain I think. Seems to me Mr. Stupak was being asked to bear a burden alone and there are lots of people who have blood on their hands if they truly believe this bill spends federal dollars on abortion.

Comments are closed.

Justin Taylor


Justin Taylor is senior vice president and publisher for books at Crossway and blogs at Between Two Worlds. You can follow him on Twitter.

Justin Taylor's Books