In an interview with ABC News, President Obama came out (obliquely) against the Stupak amendment (which passed 240-194, with significant bipartisan support), which others are reporting the President has already pledged to help undo. When asked if Stupak goes too far, Obama answered:
…I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test—that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you’re happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it’s not going to change.
So, you know, this is going to be a complex set of negotiations. I’m confident that we can actually arrive at this place where neither side feels that it’s being betrayed. But it’s going to take some time. . . .
I think that there are strong feelings [about the amendment] on both sides. And what that tells me is that there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo.
Ramesh Ponnuru calls this disingenuous:
There were, after all, “strong feelings” about the unamended legislation, which pro-lifers criticized for funding abortion. Did Obama say then that the legislation needed to be changed to allay those concerns? No: He claimed that the critics were “bearing false witness.” In a televised address to a joint session of Congress, he said that the idea that the plan funded abortion was a “misunderstanding.” Only now, when the abortion lobby is unhappy with the legislation, does Obama think it needs to be changed. But he’s not willing to state his position honestly.
Elsewhere, Ponnuru responds to conservatives who think that passing Stupak was bad strategy.
Though a bit dated now, here’s a helpful explanation from Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) on the need for his amendment:
And here’s a helpful explanation on what his amendment does and does not do: