Fixating on abortion would have been like throwing a baby out with the bath water.
Second, the health care reform bill clearly allows for state insurers as well as private insurance companies to opt out of abortion coverage. Moreover, the essence of the health care reform bill is allowing all Americans to receive the coverage of their choice. That means that any person opposed to abortions can choose a health care plan that suits their needs. Stupak did not, as the editorial team suggests, vote for government-funded abortion. Stupak did vote for health care reform.
Another reason why the Washington Times editorial misses the mark is by slandering Stupak. There is simply no need to interject a personal attack into what is mainly a political issue. Instead, the editors of the Washington Times should use logic and not character assault to prove its case. Yes, Stupak's opinions were in "constant flux," as the Washington Times points out. This only proves that Stupak remained true to his ideals even though his opinions were contrary to those held by most other Democrats. Stupak tried to find ways of passing health care without sacrificing his anti-abortion political stance. In the end, he did so. The Washington Post accuses Stupak of selling out his conscience "and the unborn." Actually, the Washington Post should not presume to know either the essence of Stupak's conscience or the "unborn."
The Washington Times then ironically offers Stupak too much credit even while slandering him. The editorial states, "he singlehandedly pushed Obamacare over the top for passage." This is incorrect. The Democratic Party joined forces in the interests of the common...
The Washington Post quotes Stupak as stating, "the bill would have passed anyway" without his support. Most Democrats had already made their decision to support health care and might not have needed Stupak's support anyway. If Stupak truly did not feel that the bill was the right measure for America, he would have voted "nay," as the editorial suggests. Stupak voted yes to healthcare reform because he viewed the bill as the best chance to remedy some of the social problems that plague the country. Stupak was doing his duty as a public servant, and in his retirement from politics should be commended for his courage.
Works Cited
CBS. "Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look at What's in the Bill." April 2010. Retrieved April 11, 2010 from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html
Washington Times editorial: " Goodbye to another unprincipled Democrat." April 9, 2010. Retrieved April 10, 2010 from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/09/goodbye-to-another-unprincipled-democrat/
But the Georgia statute outlaws virtually all such operations -- even in the earliest stages of pregnancy." Roe, et al. v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) DISSENTING OPINIONS JUSTICE REHNQUIST In a dissenting opinion, Justice Rehnquist states that the decision handed down by the Court is one in which a state is disallowed the imposition of any restrictions whatsoever on abortions during the first trimester of the pregnancy. Justice Rehnquist specifically states
12 (Rubin, 1987, p. 5) The ensuing demonstration of change in legal form is actually one of the best outlined examples of the way in which the evolving and almost living form of the legal and legislative system in the U.S. works. Each ensuing challenge must follow the line of the original legal stand of Roe to either further restrict or unequivocally uphold the Roe ruling. Yet, the ensuing change
Certainly, if a newborn baby is entitled to legal protection, then so is a fetus a day, week, and a month before delivery. The only difficulty is identifying the appropriate stage of gestation where medical ethicists define life apart from religious presuppositions. Modern medical technology is better capable of doing so by reference to specific biological development and neural processes, but in objective principle, the distinction of viability" introduced by the
While I do believe a woman should have the right to choose, I am not necessarily convinced of that the Ninth and the Fourteenth Amendment allow for a so-called right to privacy to support the creation of a right in this instance. Admittedly, I am not a legal scholar, so to disagree with Justice Blackmun seems a bit of a stretch; however, what he did in Roe v. Wade was
Rethinking Roe v. Wade Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision made in 1973, legalized first-trimester abortion, and was a historic decision that changed the course of our country morally and spiritually. Many people still question whether the United States Supreme Court was right to make abortion legal, both legally and morally. This essay will show that the historical evidence does not support the conclusion that was drawn in the decision, and
There is no need to try the case again. Before Roe vs. Wade, when abortion was illegal, hundreds of young women died every year due to botched illegal abortions. Many also traveled over the border into Mexico for unsafe and unsanitary abortions in that country. Illegal abortions are dangerous and can be deadly, and the country would return to that practice if the court's judgment were altered. In addition, states
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now