GINA: Democrat pro-lifer gets preborns included
To avoid a counterattack, pro-life groups were asked to go mum on the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act until the President signed it into law, which he did yesterday.
Now, here’s what happened behind the scenes….
GINA will protect people from being discriminated against by employers and health insurance companies on the basis of genetic information.
Genetic testing of preborn babies both in the embryonic and fetal stages is becoming more and more common.
GINA’s original draft included a loophole. It covered only born and adopted children, leaving every reason to believe families would be discriminated against in the future for genetic information from preborn children or children in the process of being adopted.
As a Democrat, Rep. Mark Stupak of MI, who is co-chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus, was able to reach out to pro-abort Democrat chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. John Dingell, also from MI, to get language included in GINA that would cover genetic information of a “fetus” or “embryo” as well as adjust the definition of family member to include children being placed for adoption.
Thanks to Rep. Mark Stupak for a job well done.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Yay!
This will be a huge blow to Hillary, whose health plan was so constructed that it would deny medical care to moms who refused prenatal testing, and to babies born after any unfavorable prenatal diagnosis.
I wasn’t aware of that, Christina. Where can I learn more about that?
Oh My God, Christina! That’s nuts! Jill needs to do a post on that!
Hurry, Jill, hurry!
Here’s the mentality of pro-abort activists… they bite and claw through laws and bills such as these like vultures while saying, “Where’s the part that prevents me from killing the baby?”
“To avoid a counterattack?” A counterattack from whom? Nobody was against this bill. It sailed through with a vote of 420-3 in the House and unanimously in the Senate.
Curiously, “pro-lifer” Ron Paul was one of the three votes AGAINST it.
And the other two votes against it were from Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA).
Three votes against it: all Republicans. So whose counterattack were they avoiding, Jill? The pathetic Republican counterattack?
Thanks to Rep. Mark Stupak for a job well done.
Shouldn’t you also be thanking Rep. Dingell, and the rest of the Democrats, all of whom voted for this bill?
Uhhh…. I second Reality on this one Jill.
There was no “counter attack” on this bill.
It had bipartisan support from the get go. The only politician who made any semi-public statements against it was batcrap crazy Ron Paul (a pro lifer).
yeah, I don’t see any opposition to his bill, except those who don’t think it’s a proper role of the Federal Government.
Christina,
That is interesting, I didn’t know Hilary wanted to do that!
Consider that Christina may be wrong, or simply made the Hillary Clinton health plan comment up.
Source, please?
Carder, Elizabeth, etc.
Hopefully you’ll take my word for it since you know I can’t stand Hillary, but Christina just plain made that up, or was misinformed by someone else making it up.
One of the SUPERFUN (sarcasm) parts of going to school for public health was a class where all we did was learn about health care administration and insurance….in boring, excrutiating detail. This included looking at many politicians and international healthcare policies and critiquing them. Hillary’s healthcare plan, though I think its flawed, has absolutely NO required prenatal testing or any coverage limitations for “unfavorable” diagnoses.
To back myself up a bit here, I found a Fox News critique on Hillary’s plan. Surely if what Christina said was true, that would be outlined in this critique (especially considering the source).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297493,00.html
Jill said: To avoid a counterattack, pro-life groups were asked to go mum on the Genetic Information Non-discrimination Act until the President signed it into law, which he did yesterday.
reality said: “To avoid a counterattack?” A counterattack from whom? Nobody was against this bill. It sailed through with a vote of 420-3 in the House and unanimously in the Senate.
Amanda: Jill said “avoid a counterattack”, not to “counter an attack”. Do you see the difference? Any possible disagreement prior to the signing would have most likely come from pro-aborts.
“Any possible disagreement prior to the signing would have most likely come from pro-aborts.”
Umm. Janet… the only disagreement came from Pro Life republicans (look it up if you don’t believe me – this bill had the support of pro choice dems all along). But whatever you need to convince yourself I guess?
There was never any CHANCE of a counter attack – it had nearly unananymous support.
I’m not doubting you, only trying to answer your questions about where opposition might come from. I believe Jill’s talking about opposition outside of Congress. Special interest groups, etc..Make sense? If not, maybe Jill can explain.
No, I know what you’re saying, I think Jill just worded it intentionally to make it sound like the republicans snuck this bill through to protect it from a bunch of “pro abort” democrats and thus deserve some great praise for getting it passed without opposition, when that simply isnt the case.
I’d think rather than turn this in to a “God bless those republicans!!” thing, she’d have taken the opportunity to be pleased about a rare (these days especially) bipartisan bill being sucessfully passed. Especially considering the only opposition came from republican pro lifers (a fact that she very conveniently left out).
Amanda, Reality, Hal:
Originally “family member” in the bill was defined as a child who is born or adopted. Why?
More details from source: “Rep. Stupak intended to offer an amendment, but in anticipation of the mark-up worked closely with the Majority staff on the Committee. In the end Rep. Stupak was able to come to an agreement with Chairmen Dingell to include his language in a broad amendment including a variety of topics and offered by Chairman Dingell. The Stupak language remains in the bill that has now been signed into law. The language included states that genetic information covered by GINA includes the genetic information of a
This will be a huge blow to Hillary, whose health plan was so constructed that it would deny medical care to moms who refused prenatal testing, and to babies born after any unfavorable prenatal diagnosis.
Posted by: Christina at May 22, 2008 6:40 AM
Whether or not this is true as Amanda has tried to determine (and you never know with the liberal media how accurate their reporting is), there is already firmly entrenched within the medical profession this idea that ALL women should now get tested.
I believe in Canada, ob’s are calling for all preg women to be tested for Down syndrome. Why? For what purpose? So we can hunt the babies down and exterminate them.
This attitude has been around a long time though – it’s only now that the ob’s are getting brave enough to push it. In 1992 I had a friend who was pregnant with twins. Because she was 35 years old, her doctor told her that unless she submitted to testing (amnio) he would not continue to be her physician! Despite pleas from many people she did undergo testing which was negative. And doctors were hard to come by even in 1992 in Canada, so she felt she had no other choice.
“You are naive to think had this been publicized pro-aborts wouldn’t have objected.”
You’ve got three “pro aborts” right here. None objected.
You’ve got dozens of “pro aborts” in Congress and the Senate who obviously knew about this, and only Pro Life republicans objected. You REALLY think if there was any significant opposition to this on the democratic end, it wouldn’t have been leaked to special interest groups? You really think they somehow just pulled the wool over everyone’s eyes? Come on now.
I know you’re trying hard to convince everyone this was some sort of great defeat for democrats and pro choicers. It wasnt. You know it. I know it. Anyone with google knows it.
“there is already firmly entrenched within the medical profession this idea that ALL women should now get tested.”
Patrica – are you saying prenatal testing is bad?
It doesn’t exist simply to help a woman decide whether or not she wants to have an abortion. There are dozens of defects that can be treated now in utero. Defects that would otherwise lead to severe illnesses and death. Spinabifeda is a perfect example.
It also helps identify pregnancies that are high-risk, so that a woman who may have wanted to give birth at home may instead require a hospital with a specialty staff and high-rated NICU to ensure the best possible chances for her and her baby.
It also helps parents who are stressed and anxious about congenital defects that may run in the family be put at ease when they find out their baby does NOT have this problem, or give them some time to prepare and accept this if it does.
Amanda,
Should ALL women have to undergo this testing? How often are the results of testing wrong? Can spina bifida be diagnosed by an ultrasound? Aren’t there risks associated with the testing?I really am curious.
I am an older mom. Had my last at age 40. My doctor knew that I wasn’t interested in the test and never asked me through all 4 pregnancies. At 42 I am getting the urge for one more. :)
Jill:
Originally “family member” in the bill was defined as a child who is born or adopted. Why?
Who cares? It was changed and no one opposed it. You’re pretending that this was some kind of pro-life victory against evil pro-aborts with no evidence whatsoever. Nobody was against this bill except three crazy Republicans.
Carla –
I’m not trying to say it should be forced or required, just that its very disingenous to make it sound like the only reason women have prenatal testing is to see if their baby has a problem and to abort if they do.
As for Spinabifeda, its diagnosed with a serum test.
See below:
Maternal serum alpha-fetoprotein (MSAFP)
The developing fetus has two major blood proteins–albumin and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP). Since adults typically have only albumin in their blood, the MSAFP test can be utilized to determine the levels of AFP from the fetus. Ordinarily, only a small amount of AFP gains access to the amniotic fluid and crosses the placenta to mother’s blood. However, when there is a neural tube defect in the fetus, from failure of part of the embryologic neural tube to close, then there is a means for escape of more AFP into the amniotic fluid. Neural tube defects include anencephaly (failure of closure at the cranial end of the neural tube) and spina bifida (failure of closure at the caudal end of the neural tube). The incidence of such defects is abbout 1 to 2 births per 1000 in the United States. Also, if there is an omphalocele or gastroschisis (both are defects in the fetal abdominal wall), the AFP from the fetus will end up in maternal blood in higher amounts.
In order for the MSAFP test to have the greates utility, the gestational age must be known with certainty. This is because the amount of MSAFP increasses with gestational age (as the fetus and the amount of AFP produced increase in size). Also, the race of the mother and presence of gestational diabetes are important to know, because the MSAFP can be affected by these factors. The MSAFP is typically reported as multiples of the mean (MoM). The greater the MoM, the more likely a defect is present. The MSAFP has the greatest sensitivity between 16 and 18 weeks gestation, but can still be useful between 15 and 22 weeks gestation.
However, the MSAFP can be elevated for a variety of reasons which are not related to fetal neural tube or abdominal wall defects, so this test is not 100% specific. The most common cause for an elevated MSAFP is a wrong estimation of the gestational age of the fetus.
Using a combination of MSAFP screening and ultrasonography, almost all cases of anencephaly can be found and most cases of spina bifida. Neural tube defects can be distinguished from other fetal defects (such as abdominal wall defects) by use of the acetylcholinesterase test performed on amniotic fluid obtained by amniocentesis–if the acetylcholinesterase is elevated along with MSAFP then a neural tube defect is likely. If the acetylcholinesterase is not detectable, then some other fetal defect is suggested.
Jill:
You are naive to think had this been publicized pro-aborts wouldn’t have objected.
Nonsense. On what grounds would pro-choice groups oppose this? Why would pro-choice groups want to allow employers and insurance companies to discriminate against women who are pregnant or adopting?
Go for it, Carla!
This bill passed with EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT voting FOR it.
If there was anything at all problematic about this bill, don’t you think one of those pro-choice politicians might have alerted pro-choice groups, or said one thing against it?
It is not I who is naive, Jill.
Pray for my husband, Carder!! :)
Amanda,
Thanks. Interesting.
Still wouldn’t get one though. :) (I’m kind of a rebel that way.)It wouldn’t make any difference to me.
“Patrica – are you saying prenatal testing is bad?”
For the most part yes, in the way that it is undertaken today.
Why was my friend required to undertake an amnio when she had no prior history of problems and no specific genetic diseases in her or her husbands family? It was entirely based on her age and the assumption that because she was 35 suddenly she just might have a Down syndrome baby.
Amnio was not without risks and she was pregnant with twins. It was a dumb-ass call by a dumb-ass doctor.
What is the purpose of such testing? Today without a doubt it is a search and destroy technique and anyone I’ve ever spoken with who has had a positive result have been under enormous pressure to abort.
Many couples say they are not presented with the positive aspects of having a child with a disability but are given droves of info on just how awful their lives are going to be if they carry the baby to term.
If the testing is used to prepare the couple and their family for the baby and if the testing is used to help them design immediate after-birth treatment for the baby then I’m all for it.
But it’s not.
This is what comes of having the idea that an unborn baby isn’t a person, Amanda. Kill it before it does become one for heaven’s sake.
Jill –
be honest with all of us for a minute…
Unless you got your news on this from Ann Coulter or something, when you wrote this piece this morning, you knew that this bill had bipartisan support, and passed with ZERO opposition from democrats, and thus, Pro Choice democrats. You probably also knew that the only dissentors were 3 PRO LIFE REPUBLICANS.
Please enlighten us as to why you framed it as though Stupack somehow got this in secretly, and that if more people had known, there would have been a “counterattack”? In order for there to be a “counterattack” doesn’t there first need to be…an attack?
Please tell me why you framed your post this way rather than being happy that both sides of the politcal spectrum and the abortion debate actually agree on something?
“Why was my friend required to undertake an amnio when she had no prior history of problems and no specific genetic diseases in her or her husbands family? ”
Patricia – no one is REQUIRED to have an amnio done. It may be suggested and encouraged, but it absolutely can not be “required” unless your friend was legally declared unfit and had a healthcare proxy who opted for an amnio.
“What is the purpose of such testing? Today without a doubt it is a search and destroy technique ”
Yeah. Because treating spinabifida and other neural tube defects in utero is CLEARLY a “search and destroy” technique.
If this is “without a doubt”, can you cite a source?
Carla,
I’m with you…my doctor didn’t give me the tests or even suggest them cause he knew I didn’t want them. Makes no difference to me either way.
On this really sweet note, I saw this special on the news today about a theatre group that combines special needs kids into their productions in starring roles. Two of the main characters in their recent production have Down Syndrome. A-mazing!
It also helps identify pregnancies that are high-risk, so that a woman who may have wanted to give birth at home may instead require a hospital with a specialty staff and high-rated NICU to ensure the best possible chances for her and her baby.
It also helps parents who are stressed and anxious about congenital defects that may run in the family be put at ease when they find out their baby does NOT have this problem, or give them some time to prepare and accept this if it does.
Posted by: Amanda at May 22, 2008 12:02 PM
How many women give birth at home? Not a large percentage I would bet – not enough to warrant this test and if the few who are doing so, want the test, they can ask for it. BTW, I had a home birth for my 4th child and my doctor did not suggest either an ultrasound or a prenatal test.
As for the stress, I’m willing to bet that getting the test for no reason at all, is probably a huge stressor for couples and causes them to worry about something they probably don’t have to. If everything is going fine, why put them through this? Most people get stressed enough when they have to go for a simple blood test.
And then we haven’t even touched on the situation of false positives. We’ve seen enough horror stories of those in the papers to last a lifetime.
Hey Carla, good luck! Another baby would be nice, I would think!!
BTW, it’s BART Stupak, not MARK.
Amanda,
My friend was told exactly what I related to you. At 3 months pregnant where was she going to get another doctor? She had to do the testing or end up facing a pregnancy without a doctor and being delivered by the ob on call at the local hospital.
And how many spinabifida babies do think are actually carried to term after such testing Amanda? I agree it can definitely be used to treat this condition even within the womb, but most often the parents are encouraged to abort for the sake of a convenient lifestyle.
Why don’t you try reading some of the blogs online and find out how many parents were encouraged to abort their ill babies?
ACOG isn’t prolife, you know!!
Bart, Mark, same difference!
Amanda, 90 percent of prenatally diagnosed babies with Down’s syndrome or Spina Bifida are aborted. You really don’t think there’s a search and destroy mindset going on there?
Hey Elizabeth,
:) I would welcome another baby into this world, special needs or not.
We have a theater group in our town that does the same thing. Too sweet!
“My friend was told exactly what I related to you. At 3 months pregnant where was she going to get another doctor? She had to do the testing or end up facing a pregnancy without a doctor and being delivered by the ob on call at the local hospital. ”
Thats absurd. Either you and/or your friend is lying, or she had a multibazillion dollar lawsuit on her hands that would have led to the immediate disbarring of the doctor. How exactly did he “require” it? One doctor does not have the authority to deny service to a patient at an entire hospital just because she opted out of an OPTIONAL procedure. What was this doctors name? What hospital did this take place at?
YOU CANNOT FORCE A MEDICAL PROCEDURE ON ANYONE unless they are under 18 and their parents want it, or they have been legally declared unfit. Amnio is a ELECTIVE procedure. At most, they would have made her sign a malpractice release so she couldn’t turn around and sue if there was something wrong with the baby that could have been treated after being identified via amnio.
“And how many spinabifida babies do think are actually carried to term after such testing Amanda? ”
Uhh… plenty. Otherwise the operation wouldn’t be performed regularly, would it? Some are not carried to term. Its a choice. Better to deny testing so that the parents who would have wanted to treat their child in utero give birth and find out when its too late to do anything about it? So if they die in their 20s (as most do) thats better than offering the testing that could save them but *MIGHT* lead some parents to abort?
Bethany,
How many little children with Down Syndrome do you see anymore? Most of the kids I see are about 13 and older. It is very very rare to see a young child, say under 5 who has Down syndrome.
BTW, I know of two couples whose first child has Down syndrome. They were in their 20’s when they had their children.
Amanda,
If spina bifida can be treated(there are varying degrees of severity)then why do “most” only live into their 20’s?
Maybe things are different in Canada right Patricia?
“Amanda,
If spina bifida can be treated(there are varying degrees of severity)then why do “most” only live into their 20’s? ”
Untreated, the life expectacy is in the 20s. With treatment, it can either be completely resolved (ie the child from the “hand of hope” photo), or reduced to cause far fewer complications.
Amanda,
You are one smart girl!! Now be prolife, please. Ok. Thanks. :)
I hope things have settled down at the hospital. I am praying for Ted and his family.
Are you talking about baby Samuel? I lurve that photo.
Oh Amanda,
too bad we live in different countries.
Canada was already much more liberal in 1992 than the US is currently.
If you are preg woman and your doctor pressures you to have this, do you really think you would pass it by? She was preg with twins, she’d had an ultra sound (which was normal) and he wanted a second test done at 5 months! Do you know how hard it is in Canada to get a doctor? Most pregnant women don’t even have a doctor looking after them here – they have a midwife now. The threat of losing a doctor is enough coercion to force the poor woman to do the test.
I’m not talking about denying women testing but I am completely against making it a requirement during pregnancy for all women. Unless there is some kind of evidence that there is a problem then the testing really doesn’t need to be done.
YOU CANNOT FORCE A MEDICAL PROCEDURE ON ANYONE
But you can coerce a medical procedure on someone.
Thank you Carla =)
We’ll all have to settle for me being a fence straddler for now. hehe.
And yes, the helicopters and annoying reporters standing in front of doors are gone. For an idea of what its looked like here all week, check out this picture my friend took:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=30268571&l=0e74f&id=195101317
Okay – thats different. She was PRESSURED. Not REQUIRED.
Thank you for clarifying. I’m not saying being pressured is good, but thats’ not the same thing as being told its required.
Crazy Photo!!
One can only be a fence straddler for so long! heh Just say you are cause I asked ya!!! I will even say perty please….
I have a feeling that when the college aged, intelligent women on this blog get married and start to have families things will change. When babies happen to you personally it changes you. Hearts can melt. Circumstances change us. Just sayin. :)
Carla,
I feel what you’re saying on that one..I NEVER wanted kids. My mom used to tell me how many grandkids she wanted, and I was like, well somebody is going to have to pick up the slack for me, cause I am not having any. And NOW, I want bunches lol.
That’s cause your girlybug is so nummy!! Those eyes, Elizabeth! Man……
When my friends and I all started having babies it didn’t go smoothly. All of the babies were not healthy, some had autism and Down Syndrome, some of us had miscarriages, some of us carried babies that died soon after they were born, some of us could never conceive and are now adopting. But we cherish the babies God gave us and the divine privilege of parenting.
Life is a good teacher.
I know, Carla. Can you imagine having to tell those eyes no? It’s rough I tell you. Especially cause she doesn’t really get upset about you telling her no, she just goes “Ohh” and puts a frown on. Oh man.
Amanda
She was required to have the test if she wanted to stay with the doctor – that was his condition of continuing on as her doctor.
If she did not she had to find another doctor.
I have a cousin that wasn’t sure if she wanted children after she married. A few years later, when she heard the heartbeat of her firstborn, for the first time, she definitely had changed her mind. Now she and her husband have two little boys, ages 4 and 1.
Amanda – please stop trying to tell me what the situation was 16 years ago. I well know because it was a very stressful time for this friend and for myself.
ANd btw, women are told all the time if they don’t abort the doctor will not continue to provide health care.
imagine if a prolife doctor told a woman she had to carry her pregnancy to term..
the proaborts would be all over the doctor
the horror of it….
GINA’s original draft included a loophole. It covered only born and adopted children, leaving every reason to believe families would be discriminated against in the future for genetic information from preborn children or children in the process of being adopted.
What does this mean, really? That a family wanting to have a kid adopted after it was born could have been “dsicriminated against”?
Is this like an adoption agency saying, “We’re not going to handle your case because of such-and-such genetic information”?
On an individual basis or on the part of a couple, if they had been wanting to adopt, it’s not like the GINA deal will mean that a surprise could be sprung on them, like, “Oh yeah, the baby has so-and-so, but you still have to adopt.”
All,
I would appreciate if you could fill out my voting survey. Please click on my name for the link.
Thank You.
Mike
Boo, Mike, you have to register for that….
Mike, tried to do the survey, but the registration process was too difficult. Plus, none of the responses really applied to me a “pro-abort” atheist.
Amanda: “It also helps parents who are stressed and anxious about congenital defects that may run in the family be put at ease when they find out their baby does NOT have this problem, or give them some time to prepare and accept this if it does.”
Amanda,
This sounds nice in theory, but it is not the reality. As Bethany said in her post, about 90% of babies with Down sydnrome who are diagnosed prenataly are aborted. Many times, the only reason the 10% “got away” was because they would have been late-term abortions (around 20-22 weeks because that around when amnio can be done) which is too difficult for some moms to do.
But now, thanks to higher tech ultrasounds used with blood tests and thanks to ACOG recommending that ALL pregnant women (or rather the babies) be screened for DS, many more babies with this condition will be caught up in the net. These tests are safe for mom and can be done much earlier in pregnancy. Therefore more moms will have them and when they find out they are carrying a baby with DS (or another genetic condition), more will choose abortion because they are not as far along in their pregnancies. Bottom line: Easier to decide to abort and easier for the abortionists to abort them.
I am a contact for when parents find out their baby has DS – both already born and during pregnancy. Those mothers I’ve talked with who find out during pregnancy have all said, “I wish I didn’t know.” They are devistated and scared. Fortunately the few I’ve talked with did not abort, and LOVE their children and feel blessed!!!
Sadly, it has been several years since I have gotten these referrals. I suspect more moms are opting to abort.
So back to the quote above. In my experience, I don’t think knowing ahead of time helps. I think it only stresses out mom during her pregnancy when the results come back with a diagnosis. With a 90% abortion rate, prenatal testing is definitely being used as search & destroy. I pity these mothers who will never know the blessings they destroyed.
Patricia, you wrote: “women are told all the time if they don’t abort the doctor will not continue to provide health care.”
Sort of like a doctor refusing to do or refer for abortions.
“ANd btw, women are told all the time if they don’t abort the doctor will not continue to provide health care.”
But I thought doctors who perform abortions are only the “bottom feeders” and “failures”.
If what you’re saying is true, thats not the case at all. So which one is it?
God Bless You, Ellie! I am wondering if you know of any adoption agencies specifically for children with Down Syndrome? I would love to adopt a baby with DS.
Since so many are being aborted though I better hurry, huh?
I think this law is a good thing. If insurance companies were allowed to discriminate against women with genetically abnormal pregnancies, this might cause some pregnant women to refrain from getting tested for fear of being discriminated against.
The effect of this law will be: more women will get prenatal genetic testing.
*poke* Jill – you never answered my questions. Im genuinely curious. I’ll repost.
Jill –
be honest with all of us for a minute…
Unless you got your news on this from Ann Coulter or something, when you wrote this piece this morning, you knew that this bill had bipartisan support, and passed with ZERO opposition from democrats, and thus, Pro Choice democrats. You probably also knew that the only dissentors were 3 PRO LIFE REPUBLICANS.
Please enlighten us as to why you framed it as though Stupack somehow got this in secretly, and that if more people had known, there would have been a “counterattack”? In order for there to be a “counterattack” doesn’t there first need to be…an attack?
Please tell me why you framed your post this way rather than being happy that both sides of the politcal spectrum and the abortion debate actually agree on something?
Carla,
God bless you for wanting to adopt a baby with Down syndrome. I’ve never verified this, but I’ve heard that there is a waiting list for people wanting to adopt babies with ds. Of course, it’s not one list, but probably refers to people having to wait with different agencies.
I actually don’t know a lot about adoption, but I have come across these websites:
http://www.chask.org/
http://www.reecesrainbow.com (international)
Thank you Ellie!!
I looked at both and saw all of pictures of their beautiful little faces and started to cry. :)
It’s Bart Stupak, not Mark. He’s my congressman, and he’s been a consistent hero, not just this one softball issue. As you wrote he is a leader of the pro-life Democrats, a vitally important group now that both houses and the White House are all Dems.