One was tempted to wonder if the headline referred to a single man's employment with a local sports team, or Armageddon.
In the event, it wasn't the end of the world after all, and the Cowboys returned two years later under another coach to make three championships in four years.
The passage of the healthcare bill is a moment in American history which I believe will stand with the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, the passage of the "Great Compromise" of 1850, and of course, Roe v. Wade.
Congressman Bart Stupak, on whom the hopes of so many were pinned, proved that he was a Democrat first, and pro-life second, if ever. He accepted a deal whereby President Obama promised to do with an executive order what the Congress refused to do by amendment: prevent federal funding of abortion:
The National Right to Life Committee quickly issued a scathing statement disputing Stupak's claim.The deal was also sweetened with a $725,000 grant for three airports in Stupak's district.
"The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing," the group said. "It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill."
The powerful Catholic bishops weren't on board, either."Without seeing the details of the executive order, our conclusion has been that an executive order cannot override or change the central problems in the statute. Those need a legislative fix," Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops' conference's Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said in an interview.
The bishops contend that the legislation before the House Sunday allows federal funding of abortion.
The bill tries to maintain a strict separation between taxpayer funds and private premiums that would pay for abortion coverage. No health plan would be required to offer coverage for the procedure. In plans that do cover abortion, beneficiaries would have to pay for it separately, and those funds would have to be kept in a separate account from taxpayer money.
Moreover, individual states would be able to prohibit abortion coverage in plans offered through a new purchasing exchange. Exceptions would be made for cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother.
Abortion foes contend that the separation of funds is an accounting gimmick, and in reality taxpayers would be paying for abortion because health plans that cover abortion would be getting federal money.
Obama's executive order, the product of frenzied 11th-hour negotiations involving Stupak's group and members of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, orders federal officials to develop guidelines to carry out the segregation of private and public funds. The order also sets out a mechanism aiming to ensure that community health centers cannot use federal funds for abortions, another concern for the Stupak group.
Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., an abortion-rights supporter, said she thinks current law and the language in the health care bill go too far in restricting access to abortion. But DeGette said she doesn't have a problem with the executive order because "it doesn't change anything." [Emphasis added.]
Can anyone really imagine that the president whose first executive order was to abrogate the Mexico City Policy and provide federal funding for abortion providers overseas is going to enforce an executive order alleged to prevent funding of abortion in this country?
If you are pro-life, but prefer to vote Democratic, the passage of the largest expansion of abortion access since Roe v. Wade should be disturbing to you, especially if you, like me, were counting on Bart Stupak to stick to his guns. The Republican Party, while far from perfect on our issues, now stands as the only credible game in town for any possibility of advancing pro-life legislation, or opposing pro-abortion legislation like this healthcare bill. Anyone who thought otherwise should have had their eyes opened to the truth of this point last night.
Here in Lake County, our two Congressional representatives, both supporters of abortion rights, split on this bill along party lines, with Mark Kirk (R-10th District) voting nay, and Melissa Bean (D-8th District) voting aye, despite a series of demonstrations outside her office, including one in the snow this past Saturday, which took place literally as she was announcing her decision to vote yes (look for me at the 1:24 mark):
As with the Cowboys and their coach, this is not the end of the world. It is a setback, to be sure. But while education and prayer remain important weapons in our arsenal, I think that the lesson to take from this defeat is that pro-life people must not neglect politics and political action in fighting against abortion in our country.
(Cross-posted from Lake County Right to Life Blog.)
10 comments:
I think this has been the greatest cost of Republicans opting out of the legislation.
If they had been part of the compromise, they could have gotten a strict ban along with:
1. More people on health insurance with no coverage for abortion.
2. Access to prenatal care for the currently uninsured.
For people in the lowest economic bracket, the cost of pregnancy would go down relative to the cost of an abortion. That would be a long overdue and welcomed change.
I know you are a social conservative as well as a fiscal conservative. However, the social conservatives that are also fiscal moderates really missed out. This was an opportunity to expand health care in a way that could have drastically reduced abortion procedures, and move the country towards a pro-life position.
As always, I think the fiscal conservative wing of the party let them miss out on that opportunity.
With all due respect to Stephanie, are you kidding. This was a closed ballgame the day Obama got elected. Having said that there is no thing as a "social conservative". You are a conservative or you're not! Your tone of conversation sounds like you support this bill. Any bill that allows the murder of the most innocent of American citizens, the unborn, needs to be defeated on that basis alone. This bill will cost me more in medicare and give me less. What do think of that? Do you want your grandfather working until the day he dies? I think not. Think this thing through.
Great post Paul, just a regular guy, you know.
Pops
Conservative Outrage
Abortion is only one of the outrages of Obamacare.
This legislation will not only pay to kill babies, but also do the following to the American people:
1. Kill economic growth with the new high taxes and regulations.
2. Destroy the healthcare industry, throwing people out of work. Healthcare seemed resistant to recession until now.
3. Destroy the quality of healthcare. More people may get coverage, but government isn't paying for people who have coverage under the current system. The influx of new people without additional money will cause long waiting lines and delays in the delivery of healthcare. Ever have a pleasant experience at the post office or the Sec. of State's office driver's license facility? Our new healthcare system will have people dying before they receive routine operations.
Abortion is not the crux of the issue here. Obamacare is anti-life because it will destroy a healthcare system that is the envy of the world.
I like some things in the reform, and dislike others.
I would have liked it better if the Senate Republicans had thrown their support behind the bill in order to ensure the survival of the Stupak amendment. But Republicans clearly have legislative and political priorities that are greater than eliminating abortion.
I've got to comment on some of these accusations. You guys sound like you get your news purely from blogs. Have you actually read the provisions? Do you understand how a health exchange works?
Pops, are you really making a "conservative" argument that health reform should be nixed because it might hurt Medicare? That's like saying "Hey big government, hands of my big government health care!"
And Peter, how can health industry lose jobs (point 2) AND be overrun with new customers (point 3)?
I think David Frum's comments in the NYT get to the heart of the issue:
David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative research organization, said Republicans had tried to defeat the bill to undermine Mr. Obama politically, but in the process had given up a chance of influencing a huge bill. Mr. Frum said his party’s stance sowed doubts with the public about its ideas and leadership credentials, and ultimately failed in a way that expanded Mr. Obama’s power.
“The political imperative crowded out the policy imperative,” Mr. Frum said. “And the Republicans have now lost both.”
“Politically, I get the ‘let’s trip up the other side, make them fail’ strategy,” he said. “But what’s more important, to win extra seats or to shape the most important piece of social legislation since the 1960s? It was a go-for-all-the-marbles approach. Unless they produced an absolute failure for Mr. Obama, there wasn’t going to be any political benefit.”
NYT
He wrote a great blog post elaborating on this point as well...
Waterloo
One last note (for Peter)...
Looks like the Wall Street was pretty upbeat today about the effects the reform bill will have on the health care industry.
Investors upbeat about health care bill
Stupak officially has my nominationfor the 2010 Richard Rich award.
& with all due respect to Mr Frum, what planet has he been living on? The only influence the Republicans would have had would have been to give the Dems cover.The Dems & Obama shut out the Republicans from Day 1.
It's been an open secret that the Republican strategy has been to kill any reform.
What planet have you been living on? This something well known and talked about by Republican strategists for the WHOLE YEAR. The difference between Mr. Frum and many other strategists is that he believes, like I do, that it was a bad idea. Many still believe that it was a good strategy.
Just a couple weeks ago the Republican public mantra (which had been on repeat all summer) was that Democrats need to scrap the bill in order for Republicans to participate.
That is a stall tactic, not a political compromise! A political compromise is, well, if you take A, B, and C out of the bill, and then add X, Y, and Z, will will vote in agreement.
Republicans could have publicly said, we will support the bill if the Stupak amendment prevails both the house and the Senate. There is a great chance they would have got it. They probably could have shaped some other stuff in the bill along the way. But they had other priorities besides abortion.
Heck, they could create a separate bill RIGHT NOW that amends health care reform after the fact to use the Stupak amendment. It could definitely pass the House, and with political pressure pass the Senate.
Unfortunately, doing that would not be "politically savvy" for Republicans. They calculate that it would be better to channel anger about abortion to their midterm elections than ACTUALLY FIX the abortion policy in the reform.
It is really the Dems and Reps vs. the people.
No Republicans voted for this bill.
Post a Comment