These days, people say "Season's Greetings," which, when you think about it, means nothing. It's like walking up to somebody and saying "Appropriate Remark" in a loud, cheerful voice.

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

The Great Pro-Life Outing

If the election of Scott Brown is the death knell for Obamacare, and that is a big if, this may be one of the greatest pro-life victories of the last decade. The most immediate and obvious impact of the defeat of Obamacare will at least be the temporary avoidance of taxpayer-funded baby bloodshed.

A less obvious but very delightful result will be "the Great Outing." Every pro-lifer in congress, and I think particularly of Democrats, was put to the test in this process. Each of them showed once and for all whether they are truly pro-life or just party men.

This judgment was most definitive for pro-life Democrats in the Senate. Now we know there are none. When it came to choose between political expediency and life, life was a distant second. Senator Ben Nelson made a big show of vowing opposition to any bill that funded/covered abortion. As we all know by now, babies were merely a bargaining chip for the Nebraska Senator intent on obtaining more important goodies like a Medicare exemption for his state. This craven baby bartering has made Senator Nelson one of the more reviled political figures in the country. He deserves every last bit of that revulsion.

Less obvious to some is the pro-life sellout of Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey. Unlike Senator Nelson, Casey's desire to be a party man did not allow him to hold out for goodies. Senator Casey took the lead in negotiating a compromise that would allow pro-life Democrats some semblance of pro-life cover by use of accounting tricks but wouldn't prohibit one taxpayer-funded abortion. You don't need to believe me on this, radical pro-abortion Senator Boxer tells you everything. Boxer told abortion supporters not to worry about the Casey compromise because “it’s only an ‘accounting procedure’ that will do nothing to restrict [abortion] coverage." Senator Casey is a disgrace to his father's memory and can never ever make a plausible case that he is pro-life again.

However, we learned some other things as well. In the House there is truly such a thing as a pro-life Democrat. Rep. Bart Stupak led that charge in the House for language that would prevent the funding of abortion. He fought for and accomplished amending the bill with the needed language. What is more, Reps Stupak, Driehaus, and a handful of other Democrats made it clear that they would never support a final bill without that language and under immense political pressure they stuck to their guns. In fighting for what is right in the face of strong opposition from their own party, these Democrats have proven that they are truly pro-life and may God bless them for what they did and are doing.

As for the sellouts, we have the best of both worlds if the bill is finally defeated. Not only will we have prevented tax-payer funded abortions, but we will have finally outed pseudo pro-life Democrats for that they are, plain old pro-abortion Democrats. These traitors to life should never forget that we will never forget.

Your Ad Here

4 comments:

Anthony said...

While it would be a victory if health care reform doesn't get passed and consequently there is no funding of abortion, I think the best result for the pro-life community would have been a health care bill with the Stupak amendment.

As its opponents correctly pointed out, Stupak would have made it much harder for many women to get abortions. This is because the federal healthcare reform would take over a large portion of the healthcare industry and consequently, as a result of the Stupak amendment, a large portion of the health care industry would have been forbidden from offering abortion (absent women paying extra for insurance which none would do).

Thus, in my estimation the order of best outcomes in terms of the interests of making it harder to get abortions would have been:
1) Health care reform with the Stupak amendment
2) No health care reform, no changes in abortion funding law
3) Health Care reform with funding for abortion.

We'll probably get option 2. But its a lot better than option 3.

P. Button said...

Anthony: The Stupak amendment would not have been enough. Once the new health care infrastucture was put in place, it would be either repealed or marginalized by future legislation. If by "health care reform" you are referring to the unconstitional, fascist, evil insurance mandate, then why the heck are you placing it above no reform in order of superiority?

Rick said...

"These traitors to life should never forget that we will never forget." Exactly. We need to pressure our bishops to excommunicate those who promoted and supported abortion laws - starting from the Speaker of the House. The people of MA have risen; now is the time for the people of God to do the same.

Anonymous said...

But we will forget. We always do.

Post a Comment