ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Bart Stupak”

Climate Progress

Waxman And Stupak Demand BP Detail Scope Of Greenwashing Campaign

By Brad Johnson on Aug 19, 2010 at 6:50 pm

BP Wonk Room adIn a letter to BP America CEO Lamar McKay, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) are demanding that BP disclose its “spending on corporate advertising and marketing relating to the the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and relief, recovery, and restoration efforts in the Gulf of Mexico.” Their request follows the efforts of Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) to get answers about BP’s massive greenwashing campaign, which includes months of full-page advertisements in national and regional newspapers, radio spots, television commercials, and Internet ads on websites including ThinkProgress.org. Outside estimates of the scope of the greenwashing campaign managed by BP’s public relations firm Mediashare are in the tens of millions of dollars, the Washington Post’s Krissah Thompson reports:

After the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in April, BP went on the air with television ads and bought a series of full-page ads in The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and other papers to position itself as an imperfect but responsible corporation committed to the cleanup of the gulf. The company has spent $55.8 million on television and print advertising so far this year, according to the Nielsen Co., which tracks ad spending.

According to Media Monitors, BP’s radio spots surged to 10,684 last week, with a particular focus on Florida stations. Since mid-July, BP’s internet ads have been running on political blogs, including Talking Points Memo, the Common Sense Media network of liberal sites from FireDogLake to AmericaBlog, and a host of right-wing sites, including Eagle Interactive‘s network with RedState and the Salem Web Network’s Townhall.com and Hot Air.

BP seems to be working harder to protect its brand than to help the people of the Gulf Coast, argued Alabama Attorney General Troy King. He has filed suit against BP because “while BP is spending millions on print ads and airtime, it’s not spending what it should on claims.” Fortunately, BP’s control of the claims process will finally end Monday, with the launch of Kenneth Feinberg’s Gulf Coast Claims Facility.

(HT Mother Jones)

BP has an agreement with Common Sense Media to be notified about this story, reserving the right to pull ads from ThinkProgress.

Related Posts

Yglesias

Stupak Caught in Abortion-Health Care Web of His Own Creation

By Matthew Yglesias on Apr 9, 2010 at 11:28 am

160px-Bart_Stupak_official_109th_Congress_photo

Here’s a shrewd point from Monica Potts about retiring Rep Bart Stupak’s self-inflicted political wounds:

The problem is, once you use anti-abortion rhetoric to criticize the health-care bill, the legislation’s actual provisions on abortion — that women would have to use their own money to buy abortion-riders because federal subsidies can’t be used to pay for abortions, so plans in the exchanges can’t offer them — don’t matter. For voters who do not support abortion rights, the bill is forever associated with abortion, and Stupak played a role in that. Since he ultimately voted for the bill, it was inevitable that he would be branded a sell-out.

Stupak stirred up enough trouble for his party during the health-care fight. Now, as the New York Times reports, the larger problem for Democrats will be keeping that seat in their hands.

If Stupak had just accepted that the original compromise language left the Hyde Amendment rules in place—which it did—then he would have made fewer enemies on the left and fewer enemies on the right. But by first elevating the salience of the abortion issue, then pro-choice activists, then alienating anti-abortion activists, he wound up in a very messy situation essentially of his own devising.

Politics

Stupak receives death threats after voting for health reform.

By Matt Corley on Mar 24, 2010 at 11:30 am

As ThinkProgress has chronicled, the passage of health care reform has resulted in a series of vandalism incidents and threats aimed at lawmakers who voted for the bill. Vandals have struck the Tuscon office of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), the Monroe County Democratic Committee headquarters in upstate New York, Rep. Louise Slaughter’s (D-NY) Niagara Falls office, the Knox County Democratic headquarters in Ohio, and the Sedgwick County Democratic Party headquarters in Wichita, KS. Now, Politico reports that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), an anti-abortion Democrat who held out his support for the legislation until Sunday, has received phone calls threatening his life:

Stupak, the Michigan Democrat whose last-minute compromise on abortion guaranteed passage of the bill Sunday, said callers have left messages for him saying, “You’re dead; we know where you live; we’ll get you.”

“My wife still can’t answer the phone,” Stupak told POLITICO Tuesday. The messages are “full of obscenities if she leaves it plugged in. In my office, we can’t get a phone out. It’s just bombarded.”

Stupak, a former police officer, said he’s not fazed by the threats or by the prospect of protests at his district office this weekend. “I’ve looked down barrels of guns,” he said. “I’ve talked my way out of it.”

Politico also reports that “Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Blue Dog Democrat from California, said he’s gotten physical threats over health care reform.” “There are some folks that identified themselves as being members of the tea party [who] called, [and] my staff has gotten to know their names over time, and they have been very loud and very ugly,” Cardoza said. Additionally, the Capitol Hill newspaper notes that “Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) said he had to change his personal cell phone number after a Republican gave it out to health care opponents.” The chairman of the North Dakota Republican Party read Pomeroy’s cell phone number aloud on the stage of the North Dakota Republican convention.

Update

Politico reports that “Law enforcement authorities are investigating an incident that occurred at the Virginia home of Rep. Tom Perriello’s (D-Va.) brother, whose address was publicized by tea party activists angry at the congressman’s vote for the health care bill.” Law enforcement officials did not tell Politico any details of the incident, which appears to have occurred after “Mike Troxel, an organizer for the Lynchburg Tea Party, posted on his blog what he thought was the congressman’s address, encouraging tea party activists to ‘drop by.’”

Politics

Who Is Randy ‘Baby Killer’ Neugebauer?

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Mar 22, 2010 at 3:15 pm

N2 Last night, as Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) gave a speech on the House floor in favor of health care reform, a Republican lawmaker yelled “baby killer” at the staunchly pro-life Democrat. While it was unclear at first who was responsible for the outburst, Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) admitted today that it was he. In a statement, Neugebauer apologized, but insisted that his “baby killer” rhetoric referred to the bill and were not personally directed at Stupak:

Last night was the climax of weeks and months of debate on a health care bill that my constituents fear and do not support. In the heat and emotion of the debate, I exclaimed the phrase ‘it’s a baby killer’ in reference to the agreement reached by the Democratic leadership. While I remain heartbroken over the passage of this bill and the tragic consequences it will have for the unborn, I deeply regret that my actions were mistakenly interpreted as a direct reference to Congressman Stupak himself.

“I have apologized to Mr. Stupak and also apologize to my colleagues for the manner in which I expressed my disappointment about the bill. The House Chamber is a place of decorum and respect. The timing and tone of my comment last night was inappropriate.”

Neugebauer is one of the House’s most right wing lawmakers and has espoused birther beliefs. When asked in June by a local radio host whether President Obama is a U.S. citizen, Neugebauer said, “You know I don’t know. I’ve never seen him produce documents that would say one way or another.” He is also one of only 11 co-sponsors of Rep. Bill Posey’s (R-FL) bill that would require all future presidential candidates to present their original birth certificate. Ironically, when Politico asked if he would present his own birth certificate, Neugebauer explicitly refused. His staff instead sent a one-line e-mail response: “Congressman Neugebauer will not be submitting a copy of his birth certificate.”

The oil and gas industry is by far Neugebauer’s biggest source of campaign contributions; banks, financial firms, and the insurance industry are among his top five industry donors. Neugebauer has advocated for a weak consumer protection agency in the proposed financial regulatory reform bill — “exactly what the bank lobbyists who appeared before the committee” wanted.

And like many of his fellow Republicans, Neugebauer is a stimulus hypocrite. He voted against the stimulus twice and called it a “massive boondoggle” that “has failed to get people back to work.” But according to the Houston Chronicle, he signed a letter in support of stimulus funds for NASA, saying it would help “secure good jobs and stabilize our economy.”

Update

CREW reported last year that Neugebauer “asked the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) to allow him to let his campaign pay Neugebauer for the use of his yacht — for fundraisers.”


Update

,In 2005, Neugebauer voted for an amendment that would have cut non-security discretionary spending, resulting in deep cuts for programs like Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which provides food, health care referrals and other support to low-income pregnant women and new mothers. At the time, the Food Research and Action Center warned that proposed cuts “could significantly reduce funding for the WIC Program in future years.”

Yglesias

The Stupak Deal

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 21, 2010 at 7:18 pm

180px-stethoscope-2

I’ve spent a while trying to figure out what it is Bart Stupak got in the course of his executive order “compromise” on abortion, and as best I can tell the answer is nothing. Or as Athenae < href="http://www.first-draft.com/2010/03/bart-got-what-he-wanted.html">puts it he got attention. I think what primarily happened is that with his bloc dissolving, Stupak cut a face-saving deal that mostly gave him an opportunity for “walking back from some of his past arguments”.

The problem with Stupack’s position in this has been that current law already reflects what he wants and the proposal he was objecting to also already reflects what he wants. If I wrote the laws, abortion would be treated like the bona fide medical procedure it is, and there’d be no reason that government-subsidized insurance plans couldn’t offer it. But I don’t write the laws, existing law reflects unjust discrimination against abortion services, and Obama’s proposals have always included a commitment to maintain the status quo. The political judgment that revisiting the Hyde Amendment in the middle of a giant fight about the overall structure of the insurance market was a bad idea strikes me as correct. But as a result of that, Stupak has been spending all this time huffing and puffing over basically nothing. In the end, Obama agreed to issue an executive order that basically amounts to pinky swearing that the Hyde rules are still in effect, but that’s always been his position. In exchange, Stupak agreed to acknowledge that the proposal actually does what everyone’s been saying it does, but he gets to walk away without admitting that he’s been wrong about this for a while now.

Health

Stupak Agrees To Executive Order On Abortion, ‘We’re Well Past 216′

By Igor Volsky on Mar 21, 2010 at 5:06 pm

Moments ago, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) officially announced that he will vote in favor of the health care reform bill after receiving assurances from the White House that the President will issue an executive order re-stating the current prohibitions against abortion funding. “I’m pleased to announce that we have an agreement and it’s with the help of the President, the Speaker, we were able to come with an agreement to protect the sanctity of life in the health care reform that there will be no public funding of abortion in this legislation,” Stupak said at a press conference, before announcing, “we’re well past 216″:

STUPAK: There has been some question raised by different groups that in this health care reform package, that somehow, some way, the abortions could be preformed at the community health centers. The President’s executive order makes it very clear that will not happen. There is some question that underneath in this bill, that somehow, you could pay for abortions with the new funds being appropriated for the community health centers. That is not possible with this executive order. There was concerns in this legislation that the conscious clause, that those who might have religious or moral objections….would somehow be co-opted or their values be lessened underneath this legislation. The President makes it clear the conscience clause will always be available and it will be in force of law.

“We have assurances from the President and others that he will not rip this up tomorrow,” Stupak said. “The President has put his commitment in writing.” Watch it:

Stupak said that he would have preferred to vote on a separate measure prohibiting federal funding for abortion, but recognized that it could not pass in the Senate. “The reality is, we can’t pass it in the Senate…we cannot get more than 45 pro-life votes.” “The Bishops are right. Statutory law is better than executive order. But we can’t get there,” he said, referring to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ opposition to the executive order. “This is just as good as statutory language,” Stupak insisted.

To some degree, however, Stupak is walking back from some of his past arguments. He had previously claimed that if a woman uses federal subsidies to pay for a basic benefit, she would have more private money available to fund her abortion. Or, alternatively, “premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars.” Now, he is walking back from his “money is fungible” argument.

The White House released the text of the executive order just moments before Stupak’s press conference began and from what I can tell, it reinforces the Nelson compromise in the Senate bill and reaffirms that federal funding cannot be used to fund abortions within the exchanges or community health care centers. “Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment,” the order reads.” The order also directs “the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements.”

Health

Stupak: Democrats Considering Voting For Tighter Abortion Restrictions In ‘Tie Bar’ Bill

By Igor Volsky on Mar 19, 2010 at 10:40 am

This morning, during an appearance on Good Morning America, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) reaffirmed that he might vote for the Senate health care bill if Democrats pass the Stupak abortion amendment as a separate measure. Stupak said that Democrats have shown a “renewed” interest in tying his amendment to the Senate bill:

STUPAK: George, that’s called an enrollment corrections bill. I presented that to leadership about ten days ago. There’s renewed interest in that piece of legislation that I and a number of us are ready to introduce. It’s prepared. Everybody’s looking at it right now. That’s one way, maybe. But we set the deal with the Senate. You give us a vote in the House. We had a vote in the House. It was overwhelmingly 240-194, to keep public law, no public funding for abortion.

Watch it:

Indeed, Stupak has been promoting this strategy for weeks, telling MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that he would support a separate “tie bar” bill earlier this month. The tie bar approach requires just 51 votes in the Senate and would “tie” the health care bill to Stupak abortion provisions. “It almost goes the same time,” Stupak told Fox News’ Greta van Susteren. “And what the bill really says is, it does not become law unless this other piece of legislation becomes law.”

Obviously, the very fact that Democrats may be negotiating with Stupak illustrates just how pressed Pelosi is for votes, but I wonder if Democrats can’t just tie bar the Senate bill to current law. That is, if Democrats absolutely need to peel off more Stupak votes, why not just vote on the Hyde amendment — which Congress renews annually. It’s less restrictive than the Stupak language and it would relieve the concerns of moderate Democrats who worry that the bill does not explicitly extend current law to community health centers. Democrats probably won’t please Stupak — who is more interested in eliminating abortion coverage from the exchange — but they could secure the votes of some of his supporters and pass health reform.

To be clear, codifying Hyde is a bitter pill to swallow — Hyde is fairly restrictive and progressives don’t want to lose hope of repealing it — but if the alternative is a vote on the Stupak amendment (which basically eliminates abortions from the exchange) or no health care reform at all, it might be something worth pursuing.

Yglesias

The Giant Federal Subsidy for Abortions

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 18, 2010 at 11:28 am

160px-Bart_Stupak_official_109th_Congress_photo

I don’t want to give the idea any ideas, but it’s a sign of the weirdness of Bart Stupak’s drive against the health care bill that he never seems to have anything to say about the gigantic federal subsidies to abortion that are implicit in current law. What subsidies? Well, the federal government doesn’t count employer-provided health insurance as income. That’s a subsidy to every who gets health insurance from their employer. And there’s no restriction whatsoever on employer-provided health insurance plans to offer abortion coverage. Indeed, abortion coverage is so widespread in these subsidized plans that even the Republican National Committee’s plan covered abortions until the press coverage became embarrassing.

Currently, the individual market is totally unsubsidized. The health care bill will regulate the individual market and provide subsidies in the form of tax credits to allow for the purchase of insurance policies. And the Nelson language currently in the bill does much more to restrict the ability of those credits to be used to buy abortion coverage than anything in current law does. Which is just to say that unless you want to put a ton of weight on the difference between subsidizing something through a tax credit and subsidizing something through a tax exclusion, the health care bill will over time significantly curtail federal subsidies for abortion while significantly increasing federal subsidies for maternal and neo-natal health.

Abortion opponents are of course free to find that inadequate. And since they getting an abortion should be a criminal offense obviously anything is going to be inadequate in some sense. But this bill, as written, is a small step in their direction as Nuns and the Catholic Health Association can both see.

Politics

Stupak dismisses nuns’ letter: I don’t listen to them, I listen to ‘leading bishops’ and Focus on the Family.

By Amanda Terkel on Mar 17, 2010 at 10:00 pm

Today, “60 leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 Catholic nuns” sent a letter to federal lawmakers urging them to pass the Senate health care legislation. They decried the “false” information floating around about abortion provisions and said that the bill’s “historic new investments” for pregnant women are the “REAL pro-life stance.” The nuns’ letter was a significant and unusual break with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which continues to denounce the legislation. This afternoon, Stupak dismissed the nuns, saying that he listens to only male religious figures and far-right religious organizations:

Congressman Bart Stupak, D-Mich, responded sharply to White House officials touting a letter representing 59,000nuns that was sent to lawmakers urging them to pass the health care bill.

The conservative Democrat dismissed the action by the White House saying, “When I’m drafting right to life language, I don’t call up the nuns.” He says he instead confers with other groups including “leading bishops, Focus on the Family, and The National Right to Life Committee.”

It’s Stupak and the bishops, however, who are increasingly isolated. The nuns join other prominent pro-life figures and organizations — including the Catholic Health Association — in urging passage of the bill.

Yglesias

Nuns Break With Bishops, Back Health Reform

By Matthew Yglesias on Mar 17, 2010 at 1:44 pm

File-SisterActPoster

Party discipline breaking down inside the Catholic Church:

Some 60 leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 Catholic nuns Wednesday sent lawmakers a letter urging them to pass the Senate health care bill. It contains restrictions on abortion funding that the bishops say don’t go far enough.

The letter says that “despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions.” The letter says the legislation also will help support pregnant women and “this is the real pro-life stance.”

When it comes to pro-life Democrats, you can have a reality problem or you can have a perception problem. In other words, some members may genuinely feel that their conscience won’t permit them to vote for the bill. But other members may simply feel that a pro-life Catholic brand is integral to their political personae and they can’t afford to see it damaged. Endorsements from the nuns and from the Catholic Health Association should be giving cover to the latter group, and also potentially changing the minds of the first group.

After all, somewhat bizarrely this particular aspect of the debate hinges on a factual question. Bart Stupak maintains that this bill provides government funding for abortions. I saw him concede (on Fox News of all places) earlier today that the White House and the congressional leadership say this isn’t the case. And the nuns and the CHA disagree. Since the dispute here is actually about the details of health care financing rather than theology, it seems to me that the Catholic Health Association’s view should be considered much more authoritative than the Bishops.

Meanwhile, Michelle Goldberg has an excellent feminist case for the bill.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up