St Michael Society

As America attentively awaits the U.S. Senate to take up debate on health care reform, the battle over whether or not the federal government should use health care to fund abortion is intensifying.  While pro-life groups have much to cheer about in demonstrating a liberal Congress voted for the pro-life Stupak-Pitts Amendment preventing federal funding of abortion, as expected the abortion industry is hard at work energizing its base to ensure abortion industry allies on the Hill yank Stupak-Pitts from the final bill that goes to the President. 

Indeed, President Obama, the abortion industry’s President, who was most clear about his commitment to abortion during the campaign and in his first acts as President when he overturned the Mexico City policy, is already signaling through his aides that he prefers to sign a health bill that provides abortion funding, i.e. strip Stupak-Pitts.  This despite the fact that countless polls now show the American people, including many Democrats and many folks who consider themselves “pro-choice” do not support federal monies being used to pay for abortions. 

Ms. Pelosi, a Catholic, also seems dug in on making sure the public option, where the government controls all health care and takes over 1/6th of the American economy, remains intact.  For RedState and centrists Democrats a vote for a bill that strips Stupak or maintains the public option would be committing political suicide in 2010.  Polls also show the American public does not want government run healthcare either because they know it leads to rationing care.  

For Catholics, and many others, this bill contradicts many of our basic tenets – even with the Stupak-Pitts amendment. Catholics need to be FOR the Stupak Amendment but AGAINST the overall bill. Conscience protections are weak in the House bill and non-existent in the Senate bill and euthanasia is permitted. These are not pro-life provisions and neither is rationing.

In many ways Stupak-Pitts and Pelosi’s digging in on the public option has boxed those centrist Democrats who voted for Stupak-Pitts and those who are rightly uncomfortable with the public option — an option that pro-lifers need to be adamant in opposing as it leads to rationed care.  This presents a major problem for Speaker Pelosi.  If she does not side with her abortion industry and government-run health care friends, she risks backlash.  Yet, if she puts the arm to the 29 House Democrats who voted for Stupak-Pitts, and sheds the blue dog label from centrist House Democrats, she risks losing numerous House seats in November. 

The risk for the 29 Democrats who voted for Stupak-Pitts is if they vote for a health care bill that either weakens or does not include Stupak-Pitts in its current form, they will position themselves as flip-floppers heading into an election year.  The risk for the blue dog, centrist Democrats, is if they vote for a public option, they are likely signaling an intent to retire from Congress.  This may be one reason why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is struggling to move a Senate bill.   

The one resounding theme that commentators of all stripes agree with coming out of the 2009 elections in New Jersey and Virginia is that voters are in a ”throw them out” mentality.  Incumbents are not very popular and that anti-incumbent sentiment is likely to grow as we roll into and through 2010.  And, it will be up to pro-life groups, Catholics and limited government proponents to hold each of these 29 Democrats, and the blue dogs accountable for flip flopping.

The question for Speaker Pelosi and the pro-Stupak, anti-public option blue dog Democrats is are they ready and willing to run in 2010 as incumbent, flip-floppers.  If they do, we can expect major GOP gains in the 2010 elections.  Ball’s in your court, Ms. Speaker. 

SMS Editors