WSJ on MSW
That’s today’s Wall Street Journal on America blog’s Michael Sean Winters.
The column is discussing the attempts of Representative Bart Stupak (D-Mich) to put forward an amendment opposing federal funding of abortions, and the lack of enthusiasm for his efforts on the part of the leadership.
Here’s where Michael Sean comes in:
Of course, it’s hardly news that Democrats find dealing with a pro-lifer in their midst tricky. What is astounding is the virtual silence from the chorus that thumped so loudly for Mr. Obama’s words at Notre Dame. Presumably, Mr. Stupak is their man—a courageous and committed Democrat who wants health-care reform to pass. Yet the liberal religious folks who claim to be pro-life as well as pro-Obama have largely left Mr. Stupak standing alone.
Except Michael Sean Winters. In a July 14 blog for the Catholic weekly America, Mr. Winters drew a line in the sand over tax funding for abortion.
“Many of us pro-life Democrats have given the President the benefit of the doubt on the abortion issue because of his repeated commitment to trying to lower the abortion rate, a commitment he reiterated to Pope Benedict XVI last week,” he wrote. “[But] all the good will he has earned among Catholic swing voters, and all the arguments on his behalf progressive Catholics have mounted, all could be swept away if abortion is part of a federal option in health care.”
Mr. Winters is right. No one—including outside groups such as FactCheck.org—believes the Democrats are being upfront about the abortion funding in their legislation. And long after this health-care debate has ended, many will judge the Democrats’ claims about finding “common ground” by how the party handles Mr. Stupak and his amendment.
The bishops’ conference is supporting an approach that would make health care abortion neutral. As Peter Steinfels so ably describes, what that is is not necessarily easy to define.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/health/policy/12beliefs.html?_r=1
William McGurn is probably behind in his Commonweal reading (especially if he’s still looking at entries from July on America‘s blog), but we did write an editorial about this issue. I’m not sure this is as black-and-white as McGurn is making it sound — but then, I get suspicious whenever I encounter the term “Obamacare.”
Mollie, how can healthcare, the purpose of which is to preserve Human Life, be neutral on abortion? If you expand access to abortion, one would expect the number of abortions to expand, and if you do not restrict access to abortion, one would expect the number of abortions to expand. The Bishops’ conference is not supporting an approach that would make health care abortion “neutral”.
Sometimes a post is so compelling that everyone immediately realizes there’s nothing more to say.
And now, MSW on WSJ:
Cathleen
So I can understand – you are not saying the UCCB is supporting the Capps proposal correct?
I think they only are saying they welcome the president’s words – from his speech – at this point, not any specific proposal that is “abortion neutral.”
This proposal is so transparently bogus (as evidenced by NARAL’s endorsement) that if the “common ground” people accept it as a compromise I question their sincerity on this issue.
Here’s how the proposal works
SON – “Gee Dad, I’d really like to buy a pint of vodka but I only have $5 and I need it for lunch tomorrow
FATHER – “Well, son, you know I oppose the consumption of spirits in all forms as wicked, and I don’t want to ever spend a dime of my hard earned cash on any liquor. Here’s $5 for lunch tomorrow.”
You have to wonder which turnip truck these people think you just fell out of when they try and pull this nonsense.
I’m saying it can be extremely complicated to figure out what a piece of proposed legislation will and won’t do–I haven’t studied it in depth. I have to say, however, that after my experience with FOCA I’m not inclined to take anyone’s word about what a piece of legislation will do without looking at it myself–particularly the word of a political pundit. I am also not impressed by arguments that say, “It must be horrible, X likes it,” or phrases like “transparently bogus,” for much the same reason.