Pro-life Oberstar loses MCCL endorsement after his support of federal health care plan

MCCL, an active pro-life political and educational organization, has dropped its longtime support of DFL Congressman Jim Oberstar, saying he’s “turned away from the pro-life principles he used to hold in common with the citizens of the 8th District.”

Instead, the group has endorsed Republican challenger Chip Cravaack.

MCCL is particularly upset that Oberstar supported the federal health care plan, which the the group says “instituted health care rationing and taxpayer funding of abortion.”

Here’s the MCCL release on the endorsement:

Chip Cravaack exemplifies everything the people of Minnesota’s 8th District look for in a candidate for Congress,” said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. “Cravaack has a passionate dedication to uphold the constitutional right to life and to protect our country’s most vulnerable citizens – the unborn.”

Cravaack has made the protection of lives threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia central to his campaign. He strongly believes in the inalienable right to life from conception to natural death. Cravaack opposes the destruction of human embryos for experimentation and supports ethical adult stem cell research, which “has shown great possibilities and does not trade one life to save another,” he has stated.

Cravaack and Jim Oberstar, the current 8th District congressman, differ sharply on these issues and on the Obama health care overhaul, which instituted health care rationing and taxpayer funding of abortion. Less than a month before voting for the Obama health care bill, Oberstar stated, “I will not vote for a health care bill that doesn’t have the [pro-life] House abortion language in it.” The House language, which would have prohibited taxpayer funded abortion, was removed from the final bill, but Oberstar abandoned his pledge and voted in favor of it. He also led an effort to lobby pro-life Democrats in the U.S. House to vote for final passage of the Obama health care bill, even though it included rationing and abortion funding.

“Jim Oberstar has turned away from the pro-life principles he used to hold in common with the citizens of the 8th District,” Fischbach said. “He has walked away from the pro-life movement. For years Jim Oberstar has had a 100 percent pro-life voting record and now he has a zero percent pro-life voting record. Just as Jim Oberstar has abandoned the babies, it is time for the voters to retire Jim Oberstar.”

Fortunately, voters have a strong pro-life candidate in Chip Cravaack. MCCL Federal PAC urges the people of Minnesota’s 8th District to vote for Chip Cravaack. He is the candidate with the courage and conviction to protect unborn babies, senior citizens, disabled persons and everyone else who life is threatened by abortion, health care rationing and other dangers.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (9)

  1. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 10/12/2010 - 02:08 pm.

    Ouch; the 8th District is MCCL turf. Is this the turning point for Oberstar’s 36 year long career?

  2. Submitted by L.A. Krahn on 10/12/2010 - 04:26 pm.

    Gee whiz, MCCL would prefer the status quo because it “preserves life”.

    I suppose it takes higher order thinking to connect the dots between access to good health care and effective contraceptives for all parents and potential parents AND their families — creating good health outcomes (the ultimate “life preserver”). Oberstar favors access to health care.

    Abortion is health care, dammit — safe, effective and (hopefully) rarely needed.

  3. Submitted by Stacey Burns on 10/12/2010 - 06:04 pm.

    And this is how you can claim your pro-life cred, cynically endangering women’s lives by voting for the Stupak Amendment, and still get kicked off the board of the Susan B Anthony List and then lose your all-important MCCL backing, all while the health care bill does not cover abortion. Sounds like a lose-lose proposition to me.

    Seems like Oberstar should have done the right thing and voted against the redundant but punitive Stupak Amendment this year. He’d have lost the Susan B. Anthony List and the MCCL, but he would have gained the respect of voters and the financial support of feminist Democratic groups who could help him win.

  4. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 10/12/2010 - 06:23 pm.

    “Abortion is health care, dammit”

    That statement is, perhaps the most succinct illustration I’ve ever seen of just how far apart the people of this country have gotten.

    And if LA is sincere, (I have no reason to believe he\she isn’t) it illustrates just how implausible the recovery of a unified USA is.

    I’m tempted to extrapolate LA’s opinion, to use as an example of why it is that joining hands for “the common good” has become an impossible dream (we can’t even agree on “good” any more)…but I’ll not.

  5. Submitted by Andrew Kearney on 10/13/2010 - 11:51 am.

    Obamacare or the Affordable Health Act? We can’t even agree on what the law is called. It seems opponents could at least use the law’s name. But by using Obamacare they seek to attach their ongoing racial smearing of the President with health care reform.

    The MCCL by raising rationing of health care-an unrelated issue to abortion-has now become an organ of the Republican party and has lost its moral authority to speak to this issue.

    Abortion (along with opposition to gay rights)is the last gasp of the institutional church’s two millenia long effort to control human sexuality. It is not scripturally based and in fact is idolatry. Sadly, people are turning away from religion because of this last gasp.

  6. Submitted by Steve Carlson on 10/13/2010 - 07:30 am.

    I want to thank the MCCL for taking the stand they have and sending a message to Congress that ObamaCare is anti-life. I disagree that abortion is “health care” except in the rare instance of the health of the mother, and then doctors need to make an ethical decision. Unfortunately, the ObamaCare notion that all abortion is health care actually undermines with and conflicts with good medicine.

    The truth is, ObamaCare initiates a horrible, unprecedented abortion industry. There is NO legitimate moral argument for any of the sides in this debate about ObamaCare and abortion except the side to vote against ObamaCare. 17 states, as far as I know, already use federal Medicaid dollars not for treating catastrophic illnesses of people in real medical need, but to control the population by aborting children of poor people. It truly is an accounting gimmick to say a family with an ObamaCare plan can go to the health care provider and get the abortion, but they’ll set up some separate installment plan to pay the “health care provider” for the abortion on the side. Those who voted for ObamaCare support a federalized abortion industry.

    This isn’t about women. It’s about people, it’s about life, it’s about responsibility of both a mother and a father.

  7. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 10/12/2010 - 09:53 pm.

    Usually, politics is about the avarice of one person or group in conflict with the avarice of another.

    On rarer occasions, politics is about avarice vs. morality. I’m making money and you think I’m hurting people to do so.

    Abortion is singular because both sides have a (legitimate) moral argument.

  8. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 10/13/2010 - 07:15 pm.

    This amounts to an illegitimate intrusion of a particular religious tradition into government. Even leaving aside secular attitudes, when ensoulation occurs is not universally agreed.

    Of course, it’s probably nothing more than electoral politics. I find it odd that anti-choice types often seem to believe that the right to life ends at birth.

  9. Submitted by Bernice Vetsch on 10/14/2010 - 03:38 pm.

    How ignorant of the facts and how arrogant to insist that politicians base their votes in Congress upon a religious belief which cannot be proved by science and which is not shared by millions of other Americans.

    The use of federal funds to pay for abortions has been illegal for some years. If the health care reform bill does not redundantly repeat the same prohibition, it does not mean it is no longer against the law.

    Single-issue voters must try to remember that far-right candidates like Cravaack will vote for the same things other so-called pro-life candidates do. Things like cutting funding for any program that actually helps the poor to survive and to be able to live indoors and to see the doctor when they are sick.

Leave a Reply