Says Stupak:
“Throughout history, executive orders have carried the full force and effect of law and have served as an important means of implementing public policy. Perhaps the most famous executive order was the Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. More recently, in 2007, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13435, restricting embryonic stem-cell research. This executive order protected the sanctity of life and was “applauded” and “welcomed” by pro-life advocates. That these same people would now claim that President Obama’s executive order maintaining the sanctity of life is not worth the paper it is written on is disingenuous at best.”
Stupak is wrong: Executive orders don’t have the full force and effect of law. They can be changed at-will by the President. Lincoln could have withdrawn the Emancipation Proclamation the next day. Obama cannot be trusted.
What an absolute, uneducated simpleton. What a tool... What a pathetic excuse for a Catholic.
Really, Judas?
Obama rescinded that EO with another one.
So, stick it where the sun don't shine, you quisling.
Bwahahahahahaha!
Someone remind me, didn’t HolyO almost IMMEDIATELY rescind Bush’s stem cell research EO???
We have other names for HolyO’s so-called EO’s, Bartie—Charmin, Cottonelle, Scott, Angel Soft...
All this is beside the point. He knows dang well that a statue trumps an executive order. The EO adds nothing to the language of the act with regard to abortion. The Act does not include the Hyde Amendment, or rather the Hyde Amendment does not cover the new law that is made here. In short, he is full of it.
I believe that was reversed by the chief PH in the WH now was it not?
Stupak:
An Executive Order is only as trustworthy as the president who signs it. ‘Nuff said, sucker.