Okaaaay. Someone just forwarded me a link to the following March 25 piece by Kristen Day, president of Democrats for Life of America, still up on its home page.
I think the timing of my receipt of Kristen’s post is good because of the Politico article I just posted, which basically corroborates that the problem isn’t with pro-life groups, the problem is with the Democrat Party and Democrat pro-lifers.
Kristen Day is my friend. I appreciate the extremely hard job she has undertaken for years now to attempt to remake the Democrat Party into a life-friendly group. I know Kristen has experienced several disappointments and not too many victories.
I also acknowledge it is widely thought in pro-life circles that National Right to Life is an arm of the Republican Party. I expect Kristen threw LifeNews.com into the mix because she considers it an NRLC mouthpiece.
All that said, I think Kristen’s anger in this case is misdirected and not helpful….
Stupak received death threats from pro-aborts that he never publicized. Why?
Furthermore, pro-life groups should not be blamed for “encourag[ing] hate and violence” simply because they express disagreement about the pro-life merit of Obama’s executive order.
Democrats for Life of America urges pro-life activists and media to stop the misinformation campaign that instigates hate and violence against pro-life Democrats and to focus on upholding President Obama’s Executive Order prohibiting public funding of abortion in the healthcare legislation.
The death threats against Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Steve Driehaus (D-OH) are not mere coincidence. These members voted for the Stupak Amendment in the first House healthcare bill and against the motion to recommit on the Reconciliation bill. However, they did so only after receiving assurances from President Obama that his Executive Order would issue guaranteeing that the Hyde Amendment would remain the law of the land.
These pro-life Democrats provided the leadership for a truly pro-life healthcare bill that not only prohibits public funding of abortions, but also helps pregnant women obtain critical access to life-sustaining healthcare.
The National Right to Life Committee and LifeNews.com have led a misinformation campaign against these two pro-life leaders. NRLC has said Driehaus betrayed his supposedly pro-life views by voting for a bill that it called the “greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.” Following the lead of NRLC, Flint Right to Life dropped their support of Stupak claiming, ‘His support of this national healthcare bill changed America forever and declared war on unborn babies, the elderly and disabled persons.’ LifeNews.com March 24, 2010.
These meritless claims about the effect of the Presidential Order inflame people who rely on these sources for accurate information. There are consequences when leaders in the pro-life community make baseless claims.
They encourage hate and violence against the very people who brought about the historic Presidential Executive Order.
The truth is that President Obama’s Executive Order will in fact prohibit any abortion funding because executive orders receive great deference in interpreting statutes. While orders can’t contradict a statute, when reasonable in nature orders are routinely used to supplement statutes especially when they are consistent with established law.
Since the healthcare bill does not explicitly call for abortion funding, the President’s Executive Order does not contradict any statute, and applying the Hyde Amendment is clearly a reasonable interpretation of the healthcare bill since Hyde has been the law since 1978.
Pro-life Democrats insisted on the Executive Order because there was not an express prohibition in the healthcare bill against abortion funding. With the President’s Executive Order in place, we now have it.
Arguments to the contrary only encourage hate and violence that undermine the Consistent Life Ethic supported by pro-life Democrats. True pro-life activists will be working to make sure this landmark healthcare succeeds with its abortion prohibition intact.