******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Monday, November 9, 2009

The Iraq-Stupak Connection

I knew it, I knew it, I knew it. Sure as I was certain that Bush would be blamed for the Balloon Boy hoax, so too I've been waiting for someone to make the connection between the Iraq war resolution and the health care vote.

To the rescue, Alison Kilkenny, who compares the list of those who voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution, with the list of those who voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment, and draws the conclusion that rich white southern men hate poor women:
Many of the Democrats who voted in favor of the Stupak amendment will surely boast they did so because they are the sentinels of human life. Of course, these Democrats are only concerned with protecting certain types of life.

In preparation for such pharisaic claims, I compared the list of 64 Democrats with the roll call for HJ Res 114, the bill that authorized the United States Armed Forces to invade Iraq.

19 of the Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment also authorized the United States to invade Iraq (one representative, Ortiz, chose not to vote, which in a time of war, is just as bad as voting "aye.") ....

All of these representatives are male, and with the exception of Sanford Bishop and Solomon Ortiz, they're white, and ten are from southern states. None of them are poor. This is the kind of unrepresentative, elite club that gets to vote on sending our soldiers to possibly die after killing many innocent people in distance lands, and this Rich Boys' Club also occasionally votes to steal rights from poor women.

At least she didn't blame John Bolton.

Related Posts:
Balloon Boy Derangement Syndrome
Will The Left Apologize To Bolton?
Playing The Nork Card

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook


  1. I must be a bit dumb, but I cannot see the connect here.

    The woman is getting her nose out of joint because some women (not necessarily poor ones) will find it harder to get an abortion, or rather they will have to find more in the way of funds to pay for the killing of an innocent life.

    She, on the other hand, by making the Iraq comparison is stomping on the graves of those murdered at the hand of Saddam Hussein, a list that is in the millions, including the members of the General Assembly that he murdered at the time he seized power.

    She forgets that someone in the CIA or maybe it was Saddam Hussein himself, misled others about the continued existence of the chemical weapons. Did they exist? Well yes, they most definitely did exist, and the Kurdish people felt the effects of those chemical weapons. I guess the lives of those Kurds are just as meaningless as the lives of the murdered unborn slaughtered via abortion every day of every year.

  2. The connection: war is inherently deadly, and will always result in the taking of innocent life. if you knew a killer was in a crowded room next to you, are you justified in shooting a machine gun through the wall, "inadvertently" killing innocent people while taking a stab at the killer? you may answer yes, but many people would answer no on very strongly felt moral grounds. that moral opposition - leads many people to oppose war in general or particular wars. the catholic church opposed war in iraq, and many of those morally opposed to war didn't want their tax payers spent to fight it - yet their concerns were largely ignored by the same people who now bend over backwards to appease the moral sensibilities of the pro life crowd.

    for the record, i'm a pro life christian. i just don't think you can frequently (maybe never) be consistently in favor of a war and be "pro life". dissagree if you like, but that's the connection.