In an interesting turn of events, Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) appears ready to vote in favor of President Obama’s health care reform legislation, despite the absence of pro-life provisions in the bill. Congressman Stupak authored a pro-life amendment in the original House bill and was unwilling to vote for any legislation that lacked pro-life provisions.

Why would Congressman Stupak suddenly abandon his opposition to any legislation that did not exclude funding for abortions? Perhaps we should examine the alleged ethical skeletons in the Michigan Congressman’s closet that, like the recently driven off moderate Democrat Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY), could break his career.

According to an expose’ conducted by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, Congressman Stupak benefitted from a sweetheart housing deal. Apparently, he rented a residence for only $600 a month on C Street in Washington, D.C. from a fundamentalist religious group, The Family or The Fellowship. Far Leftists have already begun to attack Congressman Stupak for this, claiming that there is some connection between his pro-life beliefs and his housing arrangement. Maddow said:

“So the questions remain tonight. Was Bart Stupak paying The Family rent to live at C Street? Was The Family subsidizing Mr. Stupak‘s rent which seems to have been well below market rate? Why would The Family be subsidizing Stupak‘s rent if he wasn‘t, as he says, a member of the group, when The Family admits that they subsidize rent for their members? And why exactly is The Family claiming to have no ties to the house when tax and property records indicate that it clearly does?

Bottom line here, as Bart Stupak tries to shut down health reform for an anti-abortion stunt that won‘t succeed but will make him famous, who‘s been paying Bart Stupak‘s rent in Washington all these years? Has he reported it? And why won‘t he answer questions about it?”

Is it possible that Congressman Stupak is caving to the progressives in his party and voting for a government takeover of health care without his anti-abortion conditions included in hopes of avoiding a fate similar to Congressman Eric Massa, who complained that recent charges of misconduct were driven not by ethics, but instead, by retaliation for his refusal to vote for liberal health care reform? You decide.