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/