David Kirkpatrick's New York Times article about abortion-and-health-care politics included the stunning disclosure that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is meeting today with the leading pro-life Democrat for the first time.
According to the Times piece, Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat of Michigan, got a call from President Obama ten days ago urging him to "get this thing worked out among the Democrats."
Let me get this straight: 40 pro-life Democrats said long ago that they wouldn't support health care unless they can be assured the plan doesn't subsidize abortion, and Pelosi is only now meeting with their leader? The Catholic Bishops said they want to support health care reform if they can get a tenable abortion position, but the Speaker hasn't met with the member of Congress closest to their views until now?
This underlines a point I've been making to my pro-choice readers who think that having won the election, they don't need to accomodate pro-life viewpoints: "You" didn't put Obama in the White House or Democrats in Congress. A diverse coalition did. One quarter of Obama's vote was pro-life. 40 Democratic members of the House are pro-life.
Again, I'm not arguing a particular substantive position. I'm just saying that from a tactical perspective, for those who believe passing health care reform is important, it's astounding that a full-court outreach to pro-life Democrats is happening so late in the game. Maybe there was some brilliant strategy for waiting until now -- i.e. waiting until after the bills passed committee, and Stupak had less leverage, to engage with him. Or maybe Stupak was the obstacle or Kirkpatrick got it wrong or there were productive negotiations going on outside Pelosi's office.
In any event, this is a significant development. If Democrats devise a compromise that Stupak et all can live with, then they'll bring over the other pro-life Democrats -- and probably the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"The states that had abortion were moving on an abolitionist trajectory."
The above statement is not factual. The states were moving the opposite direction. In fact, several states had implemented laws allowing abortion with no exception. The history of abortions is very interesting. For thousands of years there were no abortion laws.
The practice of abortion dates back to ancient times. Many early laws and church doctrine focused on "quickening," when the initial motion of the fetus can be felt by the pregnant woman, as a way to differentiate when an abortion became impermissible. In the 18th–19th centuries various doctors, clerics, and social reformers successfully pushed for an all-out ban on abortion. Wikipedia - History of abortion
Gerard has the right to his beliefs about abortion, he does not have the right to impose his believes on everyone. Panthera is correct about the right not being willing to compromise. Many pro-choice individuals would approve paying for all abortions. The Hyde Amendment was already a major compromise.
While I do not believe in abortions, except to save the mother's life, I believe the prohibition of funding abortions for the poor is discrimination. People with money have always been able to obtain safe abortions. Gerard is correct about, "This will never be settled through judicial fiat."
Most/all Republicans will use anything to fight against health care reform for their own political gain. Their primary objective is damage to Obama. Republicans have been paying lip service to the abortion issue since Reagan because people continue to be fooled by their empty promises.
Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee continually makes false statements about the abortion issues in the different health care reform bills. See PolitiFact: "National Right to Life Committee claims under Baucus bill, federal funds would subsidize abortions. ... We found Rep. John Boehner's claim that Democratic plans for health reform would provide federal subsidies for abortion False as it related to the Capps Amendment in a House version of health care reform, and we find it's even more of a stretch in Baucus' plan, which does not even include a public option. And so we rule this claim False."
http://tinyurl.com/ycs2yh3
1967 Apr. 25: Colorado Gov. John A. Love signs the first "liberalized" abortion law in the United States, allowing abortion in cases of permanent mental or physical disability of either the child or mother or in cases of rape or incest. Similar laws were passed in California (Republican Ronald Reagan signed), Oregon, and North Carolina.
1970 - Hawaii, New York, Alaska, Washington and Florida repealed their abortion laws and allowed abortion on demand. Roe v. Wade had tighter restrictions.
1970 Apr. 11: New York allows abortion on demand up to the 24th week of pregnancy, as Republican Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller signs a bill repealing the state's 1830 law that banned abortion after quickening except to save a woman's life. Similar laws were passed in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington state.
1971 January 8: Republican President Richard Nixon signed a congressional act repealing the District of Columbia's anti-abortion law.
1972 January: Gallup polls showed that 57% favored leaving decisions about abortion to a woman and her doctor. 54% of Roman Catholics agreed with this position.
1972 August: Gallup polls revealed that 64% of the general public and 56% of Roman Catholics favored leaving the decision about an abortion to a woman and her doctor.
Same here, Gerard - you are honorable.
Disqualifies us both from the current 'Christianity" which holds sway in America, today.
By the by, there is a slight problem with state by state marriage. The real rights which we are denied are all federal. I think 'civil union', the solution to the problem between the Roman Church and the Protestant over here, is the answer for America.
God bless us all, indeed.
Julie,
"Gerard has the right to his beliefs about abortion, he does not have the right to impose his believes on everyone."
Which is why Gerard said he will continue teaching and exhorting, waiting for society to reach a critical mass of revulsion, much the same as it did over slavery. Gerard also said he was willing to wait it out for some time, citing the centuries it took the abolitionists to achieve their vision. Doesn't sound like Emperor Gerard imposing anything on anyone, does it?
I appreciate your passion, but please do not ascribe to me words and motives that are not mine.
God Bless.
I note that opinion polls are beginning to sway back towards people wanting a genuine health care reform. Apparently, the politics of lies (false witness!) and hatred towards those who have dark skin can only carry so far.
It is, however, enormously disturbing that a large part of the anti-choice group has decided to make a stand using health care as their captive. It won't get them anything they want, will however drive those of us who are sympathetic yet not absolutist even further away from them. It will also make those of us who fear that giving in on any one single point to them will lead to their killing human rights for gays even more resolute.
Personally, I would like to see the laws changed so that every woman who can safely bring a pregnancy to term is given the means so to do. Every woman who would pay for such a pregnancy with the loss of her life or severe risk, would remain free to choose an abortion rather than be condemned to die. I'd still permit abortion within the first 12 weeks for women who are the victims of rape or incest.
Unfortunately, the lines are too fiercely drawn for my suggestions to stand a chance. The price of absoluteness is paid with many lives lost and many hurting people being abandoned to hurt even more. This is insanity.
Panthera,
"Unfortunately, the lines are too fiercely drawn for my suggestions to stand a chance. The price of absoluteness is paid with many lives lost and many hurting people being abandoned to hurt even more. This is insanity."
This situation can ONLY yield to absolutism one way or the other. It is its nature. Just as with slavery, President Lincoln declared that we will be all one thing, or all the other, but we cannot exist with some states free and some slave; so too with abortion.
Were the legislative proposals which you suggest to be enacted, we would hear the cries that women, who fell outside of the permissive window and conditions, were being forced into back alley abortions. The same justification used today.
What would you do then, Panthera. Would you tell these women 'too bad' and criminalize their illegal abortions? If your principles would have you do that in the future, why not call for that today?
There is simply no way this nation would accept a compromise that restricted abortion to some, but not others. It will be all one thing or all the other.
We will eventually arrive at a critical mass of revulsion for the practice, much the same as with slavery. Definitely not in my life. Perhaps in my children's, but it will come to pass.
There is simply no compromise to be had.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.