Mike Michaud: Despite Anti-Abortion Vote, No Primary Challenge
Rep. Michael Michaud of Maine won re-election in 2008 by a margin of 34 points, a pretty big margin. Such a margin gives Michaud a fair amount of latitude in the Congress to do as he sees fit. It’s also a sign for Democrats that the 2nd Congressional District of Maine is fairly secure, and that the incumbent of the 2nd Congressional District seat should be able to abide by Democratic Party priorities, such as this plank in the Democratic Party Platform:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.
Despite the clear pro-choice platform of the Democratic Party, Mike Michaud voted for the Stupak Amendment, legislation to undermine a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion. The Stupak Amendment prohibits private health insurance from offering coverage for abortions, and that prohibition applies to everybody under the plan, even if just one woman covered under the plan receives a subsidy to help her pay a premium. Even women who pay all their health insurance expenses out of their own pocket are forbidden from getting abortion coverage under the Stupak Amendment. In supporting the Stupak Amendment, Mike Michaud restricted access to abortion for all but wealthy women.
Thanks to his solid election victory in 2008, Mike Michaud has discretion over his votes. Michaud actively chose to vote against the Democratic Party platform; he chose to vote against women’s access to legal abortion. What are the consequences for Mike Michaud?
There are no consequences for Mike Michaud, at least not yet. Federal Election Commission records show no Democratic Party challenger running against Michaud for his house seat in the 2010 elections. In the months to come, will someone rise up on the left to challenge Michaud’s voting behavior? Or will Mike Michaud remain unaccountable for his violation of party principle?
