Check out our sponsors

A Trade? We'll Pass ObamaCare If You Ban Abortions ...

Senior Democrat is 'confident' that Stupak amendment will be stripped - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room:

The Health Care Bill would not have passed the House without this ammendment banning federal money being used to subsidize abortions:
"Sixty-four Democrats voted for Stupak’s amendment, without which the House healthcare bill would not have won final passage in a 220-215 vote."

"Stupak’s language not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public insurance option included in the House bill. It would also prevent private plans from offering coverage for abortion services if they accept people who are receiving government subsidies."
DANG! Is a practical ban on abortion a high enough ransom for this blasted bill? I want to say yes. Sure! Of course. But I don't want to be rash. Where is the serpent's twist?
“'It was extremely painful for me to feel compelled to vote for a bill that contained that kind of restriction on a woman's ability to make her own reproductive choices,' Wasserman Schultz said."
No. I do not believe a woman's freedom can eclipse the freedom of the child growing within her. This moral reasoning is flawed. The law cannot possibly restrict a woman's ability to make such a choice, if the ability never existed. The choice was never given to a woman to make such a decision; how can it be taken away. Only the law can realign itself with truth and the natural law.

For example, if the law told me and society led me to believe that I was allowed to kill my children up until the age of 18. It would be the law that would need to correct itself. It may be said that people lost their ability to make their own familial choices, but it was an ability that never existed in the first place.
"The conference between the House and Senate bills after the upper chamber passes its bill will present an opportunity to strip the Stupak amendment, and liberal Democrats have vowed to work hard to get rid of that language during that stage of the legislation."

"Republicans over the weekend signaled they’d seek similar language in the Senate bill, while several centrist Democrats are already wavering on the bill."

So here's the rub. Is this for real? Is it a trick? Or, is it just an unsustainable promise? What will happen to either water down the Stupak Ammendment or make it vanish completely?

This is tough. This is a moment for statesmen, when the meat of the compromise shifts so rapidly. What is the right choice? Fight the bill no matter the compromise? Or is there a ransom we're willing to pay?

In the long run, I think it's best to fight the bill. The debate needs to change dramatically, not just provisionally. We need a tectonic shift in America's culture to turn away from demeaning the dignity of life. Such a shift as this may only occur if the the Far Left is utterly swept out of office during the midterm elections, if this experiment in liberalism is shown to be morally bankrupt.

On the other hand, victories are rarely ever so complete as all that in politics. Maybe we should catch while the catching is good.

What do you think?

Check out our sponsors

Check out our sponsors

Post a Comment


  1. Why do you hate health care reform? I don't get why you go against the party line on the death penalty but not on making sure that everyone has access to medical care.

  2. I don't have a party or lines. I'm Catholic. Catholic social teaching is more coherent, logical, and ... true than anything preached by any pundit or party in America.

    Everyone should have access to medical care, but no one should have access to abortions, let alone be forced to pay for another's abortion.

    ObamaCare has good parts, but it's obviously imperfect, practically and morally speaking. It is practically imperfect, because it doesn't address tort reform; morally imperfect because it violates the human dignity of the unborn.

    Don't the unborn deserve medical care? Why aren't they counted in your definition of "everyone"?

    I'm willing to stomach the practical imperfections if the moral failings are addressed. I accept the trade, provisionally.

    We'll see what happens in the Senate.

    On a side note, wasn't it the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that pushed for this compromise? That's AWESOME!! Compare their lobbying budget to the insurance and health care industries ... the truth shines brighter than cash. Amazing.