UPDATE, 7/8, 7:38a: The Weekly Standard has a related article in its July 5-12 issue entitled, "Endangered Species: Do pro-life Democrats have a future?"
7/7, 4:20p: All pro-life groups agreed that the healthcare bill ratified in March allowed public funded abortions - except one, Democrats for Life, which praised its passage....
At the time several pro-life groups vowed to oppose Democrats for reelection who called themselves pro-life but voted for Obamacare based on Obama's executive order stating abortion would not be funded. (All pro-life groups called the EO a sham and worth the paper it was written on, except Democrats for Life.)
One scalp has already been claimed, WV Rep. Alan Mollohan (pictured left), who lost his primary battle against Mike Oliverio, with the Susan B. Anthony List getting partial credit.
Pro-life groups are also making themselves known in other races, opposing names pro-lifers will remember from the healthcare battle, "Steve Driehaus in OH, Kathy Dahlkemper in PA and Brad Ellsworth in IN," according to LifeNews.com.
Add to that the retirements of 2 others, some speculate out of fear - MI Rep. Bart Stupak and WI Rep. Dave Obey - and there is apparent cause for alarm.
Which brings us to the news, as reported by the Washington Post on July 3:
Antiabortion groups are targeting Democratic lawmakers who they say betrayed their pro-life views. The Susan B. Anthony List has run radio ads calling Driehaus's vote "the ultimate betrayal." National Right to Life, which was founded in SW OH, plans to do the same.
A national GOP Web site identified 15 "Stupak's Sellouts," named after... Stupak... who served as the leader of antiabortion Democrats who ultimately backed the bill. In a recent e-mail to reporters, the National Republican Congressional Committee said Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA) "betrayed women and unborn children with her vote in favor of a pro-abortion health care bill."...
Though views on abortion typically split along partisan lines, antiabortion swing voters make up 3% to 5% of the electorate in certain congressional districts, said Kristen Day, executive director of the antiabortion Democrats for Life of America.
Democratic groups have begun to fight back, notably Day's group, which is starting a political action committee to support 15 vulnerable anti-abortion Democrats including Driehaus. Called "Whole-Life Heroes," the PAC will try to convince voters that executive orders are rarely overturned and that the new law includes other aspects that should please abortion opponents....
Comments:
Jill, with all due respect, your wrong on this one, again. Advancing the cause of human rights into the democratic party and supporting the very few of them that dared step forward drove the PP and NARAL folks to distraction - with good reason. Kristin Day is a brave and honest woman who we should not be picking a fight with. That is exactly what would get those same people to smile about.
You have a blind spot for how many pro abortion and/or "wishy washy on the subject" republicans there are. They abound. Perhaps you could compare this campaign to how thrilled you were (along with so many of your readers) when Scott Brown won his senate seat. Scott Brown is pro abortion, and said he thinks Roe/Wade should stay.
The alternative in the health care bill to what the Democrats for Life got us was to get NOTHING at all - and indeed probably be staring FOCA in the face to boot. Pro life republicans did NOT have the votes to stop any of it! The math was and is pretty darn simple, Jill.
Not sure where you get your info, but my congressman Tom Perriello was never pro life even before he was elected. He voted for the DC funding bill and his "no public money" ploy was just a campaign gimmick that he did not remember when he voted.
I hope he loses, but I have to repeat that this campaign to defeat and divide our own allies based on partisanship is crazy. Does anybody ever look back on MLK and say "he was a great republican who defeated the democrats?"
Posted by: Sean at July 7, 2010 4:54 PMThere is just no room for moderates in this country’s political discourse anymore... It’s just pure gang mentality. Your ether with us or against us... If you’re Pro-choice then you must be against gun rights or if you’re Pro-gay marriage then you must also be Enviro-green as well. There is never any comprehensive debate, just a right guy and a left guy talking at each other and no one is listening at all. You have got to love the 2 party system....
Posted by: Biggz at July 7, 2010 7:50 PM"The alternative in the health care bill to what the Democrats for Life got us was to get NOTHING at all - and indeed probably be staring FOCA in the face to boot. "
The sellouts had another alternative---and one that 60% of Americans today want---which is NO Obamacare. Zip, zero, none.
In other words, had they stood their ground, the bill would have gone down in flames, and we wouldn't be having the likes of Berwick being appointed to Official Healthcare Redistributionist.
Let's take a step back and view a larger frame here. Those wishy-washy republicans of which you speak, they're in for the same political flogging that the sellouts are. It is simply not a favorable year for incumbents, regardless of the capitol letter next to their name. (See Exhibit A: Utah)
In other words, folks are more alert this time around, most have done their homework, and are ready to rumble.
Not all, but most.
Posted by: carder at July 7, 2010 9:02 PMI think the Obamacare vote showed there really isn't such a thing as a pro life Democrat. If they have to, they vote the party line, and the Democrat party is definitely not for pro life.
It doesn't make sense to vote for a Dem anyway, even if they are pro life, if you want to stop Dem control of Congress.
Of course, not all Republicans are pro life, but many are, and it's in the GOP platform.
Posted by: Joanne at July 7, 2010 10:01 PM"Democrats for Life": an idea that was great when it was conceived but now we know it is basically worthless. The Democratic party as a whole is off the charts in its support of abortion.
Some advice for Democrats considering running for office on a pro-life platform: forget it. You have about as much chance of making inroads in your party as a canoeist successfully paddling up the Niagra Falls. Strongly consider becoming a Repub or an Independent--you will have a far better chance of reaching the pro-life constituency in your district.
Posted by: Jerry at July 7, 2010 10:03 PM"Democrats for Life": an idea that was great when it was conceived but now we know it is basically worthless. The Democratic party as a whole is off the charts in its support of abortion.
Some advice for Democrats considering running for office on a pro-life platform: forget it. You have about as much chance of making inroads in your party as a canoeist successfully paddling up the Niagra Falls. Strongly consider becoming a Repub or an Independent--you will have a far better chance of reaching the pro-life constituency in your district.
Posted by: Jerry at July 7, 2010 10:05 PMI would just like to know who the Stupak Sellouts voted for in the 2008 Presidential Election. I don't think it was John McCain. There is no such thing as a pro life Democrat.
Posted by: mary at July 7, 2010 11:03 PMA pro-life person voting Dumbocrat is like a civil rights activist joining the KKK so they can vote for an Exalted Wizard who is civil rights oriented....it just doesn't make any sense to join the KKK if you support civil rights. It also doesn't make any sense to vote for members of a party with a pro-abort platform (The Dumbocratic Party) if you are pro-life.
Posted by: truthseeker at July 8, 2010 12:05 AMIt's posts like these and many of the comments attached thereto that make me shake my head at the pro-life movement. We really suck.
Posted by: Nate Sheets at July 8, 2010 12:31 AMNate,
The part that really sucks is the PLINOs (ProLifeInNameOnly)who vote to fund Planned Parenthood and fund for the poor people all over the world to abort their babies. Yes. The fearless leader of your party Dems For Life. You stand behind that stab a baby in the head with a scissors partial birth abortion fundraiser is the fearless leader of the Dems For Life. And they look you in the eye that they are doing it for the benefit of humanity. The truth must be known.
Who would join a pro-death party platform.
Dems for Life. Dems for life.
And rail against our nations killing.
Dems for Life. Dems for Life.
Shouting NO to the death penalty and Euthenasia.
Government abortions and euthenasia now.
Dems for Life. Dems for Life.
Government paid abortion mills in every town.
Dems for Life. Dems for Life
Obamacare is law now you signed the paper
Dems for Life. Dems for Life.
Baby killing is allowed on this he will not waiver
Dems for Life. Dems for Life.
Audience with bishops, you said you would not fold
Dems for Life. Dems for Life.
Then back down sell out for pieces of gold
Dems for Life. Dems for Life.
Hail Obama, hail to lying.
Dems for Life. Dems Life.
This party is more dead then dying.
Dems for Life. Dems for Life.
Now were changing our names from Dems to DINOs.
Were the Dems for Life. Ya Dems for Life.
Really not much different then your typical RINO
Dems for Life. Dems for Life.
Posted by: truthseeker at July 8, 2010 2:57 AM
There's a great on the Weekly Standard blog that asks the same question we're arguing on this thread: is there such a thing as a pro-life democrat. Stupak gets interviewed.
I'm feeling slightly sorry for Bart...he's had enough.
Posted by: carder at July 8, 2010 6:25 AMSean wrote I was "wrong on this one, again," that "Kristin Day is a brave and honest woman who we should not be picking a fight with," that I "have a blind spot for how many pro abortion and/or 'wishy washy on the subject' republicans there are," and that I am on a "campaign to defeat and divide our own allies based on partisanship."
Sean, please reread my post. I was reporting a story, and I was using facts to do so. You read into it. In fact, it is a sad story - pro-life money is being used against pro-life money.
I am friends with Kristen, who will tell you that through the years I have tried very hard to catch pro-life Democrats being good.
Carder, good find (and hi! welcome back!). I'm posting a link to that story at the top of my post.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at July 8, 2010 7:37 AMPro-Life Democrats support a law that carves out money for contraception, supports dehydrating and starving your comatose family member, and allows the government to shove condoms in the faces of school children, and funds Planned Parenthood as a primary-care entity.
I'm still waiting for Dems For Life to "show me the pro-life."
Posted by: Cranky Catholic at July 8, 2010 8:01 AMNon-sequitur alert!
Avert your eyes if a short detour from the 'thread' will make it difficult or impossible to find your way back.
NASA Chief: Next Frontier Better Relations With Muslim World
Published July 05, 2010
FoxNews.com
www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims/
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in an interview with Al Jazeera:
"When I became the NASA administrator -- or before I became the NASA administrator -- he [b.o.] charged me with three things"....perhaps foremost, he [b.o.] wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering," Bolden said in the interview.
[I am not an historian, but didn't the arab worlds historic contributions to science, math, and engineering occur before the advent of Islam?
What have the contributions been since the advent of Islam?
Sharia law barring half the population (women) from participation in the sciences might have something to do with the reduction in contributions.]
-------------------------------------------------
b.o.'s new meaning for N.A.S.A.
'Not About Space Anymore'
Posted by: yor bro ken at July 8, 2010 8:07 AM"I'm still waiting for Dems For Life to "show me the pro-life."
Posted by: Cranky Catholic at July 8, 2010 8:01 AM"
---------------------------------------------
Don't hold your breath...
How does that saying go?
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on ME."
Ok, who wants to get fooled again?
Unfortunately, the price of getting fooled by these 'so-called' Pro-life politicians are paid for with the innocent blood of the unborn.
Posted by: RSD at July 8, 2010 9:27 AMNon-sequitur, amusement diversion alert.
Avert your eyes or leave a trail of bread crumbs to lead you back to the thread.
--------------------------------------------------
Viagra-popping seniors lead the pack for STDs
By Frederik Joelving
NEW YORK | Tue Jul 6, 2010 12:04pm EDT
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Even if you're past your prime and have a hard time getting an erection, you might still need to worry about unprotected sex, according to U.S. doctors.
In fact, they report in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in older men taking erectile dysfunction drugs like Viagra is twice as high as in their non-medicated peers.
[Is the purpose of 'safe sex' only the prevention of STD's and do researchers also consider pregnancy an STD?]
In both groups, however, the numbers are 'swelling'.
[Interesting choice of 'word']
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were more than six new cases of STDs per 10,000 men over 40 in 2008, up almost 50 percent since 1996.
While the reasons for this development aren't well understood, he said more divorces and better health might have conspired to boost sexual prowess and activity among graying heads.
[I wonder if they sorted the study for homosexual as opposed to heterosexual activity. Seems like it would be a reaonable area of inquiry. Suggest researchers Google 'bareback'.]
The problem, however, is that older adults appear to flaunt safe sex practices.
[It is still difficult to teach an old hound dog new tricks, especially when he is 'on the scent'.]
For instance, the researchers note, 50-year-olds are six times less likely to use a condom than men in their 20s.
[Maybe there are other reasons for this 'latex intolerance' among seniors. I wonder if the reseachers factored long term monogamos relationships into the equation when considering why men and/or women would choose not to use a condom. One way of practcing safe sex, sans condom, is remaining in a life long monagmous relationship.]
Jena recommended that doctors take a few minutes to discuss safe sex with older men when they prescribe Viagra.
[Why not discuss 'safe sex' with older women as well? Suggest Jena Google the term 'cougar'.]
I couldn’t disagree with Sean more. I have done the math and the pro-abortion health care bill would not have passed if our so-called pro-life congressmen would have walked the talk. Further, Democrats for Life worked to elect these turncoats, often at the expense of solid pro-life incumbents like Steve Chabot in Cincinnati. Steve Driehaus is living on borrowed time because he will likely be defeated for his votes supporting abortion—he also voted to fund Planned Parenthood. Pro-lifers can no longer sit by and hope for the best from those who align themselves with a political party that stands for abortion-on-demand in their platform. Keep telling it like it is Jill!
Posted by: Brad Mattes at July 8, 2010 11:48 AMSorry, but Kristin lost my respect with that press release right after the vote touting Obamacare as if it was a good thing.
I sent her an email telling her so.
Posted by: Andy at July 8, 2010 11:58 AMJill, the fact still remains that given the mathematical reality in congress at the time the bill was voted on, pro life republicans were 1000% incapable of stopping anything, and that includes FOCA. There are so many partisans here who can't seem to do 3rd. grade math! Without these so called traitors, we'd have FOCA passed as the law of the land right now. How soon we forget the situation we were in less than 2 years ago! And how soon we attack those that they themselves got us and what nobody would have thought possible in February, 2009.
And Jill, I went back and read your blog the day Scott Brown won that special election in Massachusetts. Although I too was relieved that a NARAL activist in Coakley was defeated - the fact remains that you were ecstatic that a PRO ABORTION senate candidate won the election. I think you are the best pro life blogger on earth - really, I do - but you have let your blind hatred for Obama get the better of you on this one. Not everything in the health care bill is inherently evil. And Scott Brown ended up having ZERO effect on it anyway.
One of the BIG problems here is that we are in danger of our movement getting taken over by extremely partisan people who want to attach all sorts of other issues to ours. And that's a dead end. If we get lost in the very complicated battle over the health care bill, we lose our focus - and we vanish as a small subset to the most conservative of republicans. I'll use the civil rights comparison again. MLK refused to let his movement be gobbled up by the republican party. Instead, he actually reached into the hearts and minds of SOUTHERN democrats and got a Democratic President FROM TEXAS to sign the Civil Rights Act! Get it?
So this talk of "sell outs," "back stabbers" and the like is INSANE. Do you folks REALLY think that the entire other half of America is going to vanish? Really? Are you incensed that the government intrudes into your life with socialist policies like Social Security, Medicare, and the Interstate Highway System for that matter?
My group here in Central Virginia is going to need the help of pro life leaders in Virginia like Kristin Day and some of our democratic leaning group members also if we are going to effectively take on the national scandal of in house abortions and medical misinformation at state funded universities like UVA. The way social justice wars like this are won is to infiltrate and convert people on the other side of the debate with the superiority of our arguments in defense of both the health of infants and their mothers (and fathers). This is exactly why the DFL lobby in congress has driven NARAL to the point of pulling their hair out. I have no doubt that NARAL welcomes their new allies from the pro life movement in defeating these democrats who stood up, saved us all from FOCA, and got us way more in the health care bill than even we could have imagined a year before.
We're never going to agree on every other political issue in America as a group. So lets get over the fantasy that we ever are - and remember what we are doing and what our issue is.
United we stand, and advance.
Divided, we fall - and NARAL rejoices.
Posted by: Sean at July 8, 2010 1:12 PMDisclaimer: The following opinions do not necessarily reflect the view of the host of this site or the other contributors.
Use of any replay or account of the following presentation is expressly prohibited by...
Never mind.
--------------------------------------------------
Obama: "Israelis Suspicious Of Me Because My Middle Name Is Hussein"
www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-israelis-suspicious-of-me-because-my-middle-name-is-hussein-1.300793
By Haaretz Service
During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama [b.o.] said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion."
---------------------------------------------------
Right.
Gee, I dunno b.o.
Maybe it has more to do with the aversion you have to correctly identifying acts of violence committed by Jew hating mass murderers as 'terrorism'.
Then there is the demand that Israel reveal it's nuclear weapons without a similar demand of Iran, N. Korean, Pakistan, India pr China.
Or when you join with the anti semites in the U.N. condemning Israel for enforcing a blockade that is completely in compliance with existing international law and consistent with the historical practices of other nations.
Or it might be your claim that the United States of America is the largest muslim nation in the world.
Or when you join with the President of Mexico in condemning the governor and the legislature of one of your own states for actually wanting to secure the border between Mexico and the USA.
As for Rahm Israel Immanuel being Jewish.
To borrow a phrase from the liberal playbook:
'Just because someone has Jewish sirname, speaks Hebrew, and attends syanagogue does not make him/her a Jew.'
There are jews and then there are Jews.
Meyer Lansky was a jew, but I do not believe he is by any means a favorite son of Israel.
Somehow I believe Jews would be just as suspicious of you if your name was Simon Wiesenthal or Benjamin Disraeli.
Experience has taught them to pay more attention to what a man does than what his teleprompter instructs him to say.
It is a better indication of whats in mans heart by whats in his hands, than what comes out of his mouths.
I am not a Israelis citizen, nor a practicing Jew and I don't trust you either becasue you have provided ample evidence you are NOT trustworthy.
You may have had a passing affiliation with the 'truth' in your youth, but it failed to find a permanent abode in your heart.
It might be a good thing for the peope of Israel to start looking to the GOD of Israel for their protection and preservation than the undocumented alien in chief of the United States of America.
Posted by: yor bro ken at July 8, 2010 5:09 PMDisclaimer: The following opinions do not necessarily reflect the view of the host of this site or the other contributors.
Use of any replay or account of the following presentation is expressly prohibited by...
Never mind.
--------------------------------------------------
Obama: "Israelis Suspicious Of Me Because My Middle Name Is Hussein"
www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-israelis-suspicious-of-me-because-my-middle-name-is-hussein-1.300793
By Haaretz Service
During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama [b.o.] said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion."
---------------------------------------------------
Right.
Gee, I dunno b.o.
Maybe it has more to do with the aversion you have to correctly identifying acts of violence committed by Jew hating mass murderers as 'terrorism'.
Then there is the demand that Israel reveal it's nuclear weapons without a similar demand of Iran, N. Korean, Pakistan, India pr China.
Or when you join with the anti semites in the U.N. condemning Israel for enforcing a blockade that is completely in compliance with existing international law and consistent with the historical practices of other nations.
Or it might be your claim that the United States of America is the largest muslim nation in the world.
Or when you join with the President of Mexico in condemning the governor and the legislature of one of your own states for actually wanting to secure the border between Mexico and the USA.
As for Rahm Israel Immanuel being Jewish.
To borrow a phrase from the liberal playbook:
'Just because someone has Jewish sirname, speaks Hebrew, and attends syanagogue does not make him/her a Jew.'
There are jews and then there are Jews.
Meyer Lansky was a jew, but I do not believe he is by any means a favorite son of Israel.
Somehow I believe Jews would be just as suspicious of you if your name was Simon Wiesenthal or Benjamin Disraeli.
Experience has taught them to pay more attention to what a man does than what his teleprompter instructs him to say.
It is a better indication of whats in mans heart by whats in his hands, than what comes out of his mouths.
I am not a Israelis citizen, nor a practicing Jew and I don't trust you either becasue you have provided ample evidence you are NOT trustworthy.
You may have had a passing affiliation with the 'truth' in your youth, but it failed to find a permanent abode in your heart.
It might be a good thing for the peope of Israel to start looking to the GOD of Israel for their protection and preservation than the undocumented alien in chief of the United States of America.
Posted by: yor bro ken at July 8, 2010 5:10 PMDisclaimer: The following opinions do not necessarily reflect the view of the host of this site or the other contributors.
Use of any replay or account of the following presentation is expressly prohibited by...
Never mind.
--------------------------------------------------
Obama: "Israelis Suspicious Of Me Because My Middle Name Is Hussein"
www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-israelis-suspicious-of-me-because-my-middle-name-is-hussein-1.300793
By Haaretz Service
During the interview Wednesday, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama [b.o.] said that "some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion."
---------------------------------------------------
Right.
Gee, I dunno b.o.
Maybe it has more to do with the aversion you have to correctly identifying acts of violence committed by Jew hating mass murderers as 'terrorism'.
Then there is the demand that Israel reveal it's nuclear weapons without a similar demand of Iran, N. Korean, Pakistan, India pr China.
Or when you join with the anti semites in the U.N. condemning Israel for enforcing a blockade that is completely in compliance with existing international law and consistent with the historical practices of other nations.
Or it might be your claim that the United States of America is the largest muslim nation in the world.
Or when you join with the President of Mexico in condemning the governor and the legislature of one of your own states for actually wanting to secure the border between Mexico and the USA.
As for Rahm Israel Immanuel being Jewish.
To borrow a phrase from the liberal playbook:
'Just because someone has Jewish sirname, speaks Hebrew, and attends syanagogue does not make him/her a Jew.'
There are jews and then there are Jews.
Meyer Lansky was a jew, but I do not believe he is by any means a favorite son of Israel.
Somehow I believe Jews would be just as suspicious of you if your name was Simon Wiesenthal or Benjamin Disraeli.
Experience has taught them to pay more attention to what a man does than what his teleprompter instructs him to say.
It is a better indication of whats in mans heart by whats in his hands, than what comes out of his mouths.
I am not a Israelis citizen, nor a practicing Jew and I don't trust you either becasue you have provided ample evidence you are NOT trustworthy.
You may have had a passing affiliation with the 'truth' in your youth, but it failed to find a permanent abode in your heart.
It might be a good thing for the peope of Israel to start looking to the GOD of Israel for their protection and preservation than the undocumented alien in chief of the United States of America.
Posted by: yor bro ken at July 8, 2010 5:16 PMThe last post by "yor bro ken" provides us with a perfect example of what I am talking about.If we allow ourselves to pulled into other issues or completely controlled by one or another party, we do so to the peril of those we are trying to save.
Indeed, we should all be asking ourselves right about now: Why the hell DID I rejoice so much at pro abortion Scott Brown's victory in January, then turned right around and called Bart Stupak hateful names after he and his DFL colleagues got us what what we got in the health care bill (including the Pregnant Woman Support Act!) and then forced Mr. Obama to sign a a pro life executive order that made NARAL do back flips?
Would ANY of us have thought any of this possible in February, 2009? I sure didn't. I had reserved myself to FOCA passing before the year was out. Any republican who can do simple math knows I'm right about this.
SO.... You rejoice when a guy wins whose stated policy on abortion on his website is this:
"this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor"
And you insult, defame, and organize to defeat a candidate whose stated policy on his website is this:
"I believe that embryos, as human life, should be treated and valued with the same respect as you and me."
I'd like everyone who disagrees with me to take a moment to reflect upon this rather amazing paradox, and consider it in terms of past social justice movements that have succeeded - and the history of partisans swings of the electoral pendulum that movements such as ours swing along with if we grasp hold of one or the other.
That's all I ask.
Posted by: Sean at July 8, 2010 5:53 PMSean concentrate on a few basic facts. Self-proclaimed pro-life Democrats voted for the nealth care bill which will impose death on millions of more americans. It will usher in killing patients on end of life issues--plain and simple. These turncoats need to be voted out of office. I am not talking about political parties or other issues. If self-professed pro-life Republicans voted for healthcare reform, they also need to be defeated. Further, several of these faux pro-life Dems took out solid pro-life incumbents who would have made it possible to keep the bill from passing.
Posted by: Brad Mattes at July 8, 2010 8:44 PMI completely agree with you, Sean. I'm sick and tired of having the pro-life movement monopolized by one demographic or political stance. We should stand behind pro-life Democrats, not demonize them. Not all pro-lifers may agree with the health-care bill, but I saw it as an earnest attempt to remain consistent with pro-life ethics. We can argue about the flaws until we're blue in the face, but the truth is that accounting for health care for all Americans is a very, very pro-life goal, and the fact that we, in spite of the pro-abortion stances of all three branches of government, have kept abortion from being lumped into "health care" in that context, is a HUGE victory.
Now that the bill has passed, I think that it's more important to work with pro-life Democrats, instead of driving a wedge between different factions. Pro-lifers are Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Atheists, Neo-pagans, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists... NO ONE has a right to put their name on the movement and call it their own.
Posted by: Clarice at July 9, 2010 8:10 AMIt puzzles me why well-intended pro-life individuals fail to realize that abortion-on-demand is indeed “being lumped into health care.” That’s precisely why so-called pro-life Democrats and Republicans that voted for it should be defeated in November.
Posted by: Brad at July 9, 2010 8:43 AMShould the people believe/ trust in Benedict Arnold after he betrayed the Colonials to the British?
Sorry...I don't go with what is stated in a politician's website. Actions speak louder than words.
Posted by: RSD at July 9, 2010 10:39 AMRSD: Funny you should mention Benedict Arnold, if you remember he was once a war hero for the Americans, switching sides only after being repeatedly betrayed and abused by them.
Posted by: Clarice at July 9, 2010 11:20 AMClarice, I saw that too...on the History Channel over the ID weekend...
So, you're saying it's ok to betray your own people if you got passed over on a promotion or you lost out on a popularity contest with the other generals?
Posted by: RSD at July 9, 2010 3:18 PMI don't know, RSD - have you stopped beating your wife?
Posted by: Clarice at July 13, 2010 1:29 PMThe words Democrat and Pro Life do not go together.
Posted by: Bill at July 13, 2010 10:30 PMAmen Bill. Does the phrase "Party of Death" come to mind. Take a look at the Demoncratic Party platform. I rest my case. "The truth will set you free."
Posted by: Prolifer L at July 13, 2010 10:51 PM