Roe, Doe, DOA: How Abortion is Killing the Democratic Party
March 22, 2010
Joe Carter
Last night 219 members of in the House of Representatives proved what many of us have suspected for decades: Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton are the twin pillars of the Democratic Party. The refusal to prohibit federal funding of abortions in the health care bill shows that the Democratic leadership is either remarkably dedicated to the principle that woman should have the right to use federal funds to kill their unborn children or they are the dumbest politicians in history. However, if they truly support abortion on demand they should stand by that conviction no matter how many elections it will cost them. And as history has shown, it has cost them plenty—and will cost them many more.
This wasn't always the case. The GOP was once the party open to those who supported abortion rights while the Democrats were generally populated with pro-lifers. During the primary race for the 1988 Presidential election, five of the Democratic contenders—Jesse Jackson, Joe Biden, Paul Simon, Dick Gephardt, and Al Gore—had previously opposed abortion. So did Bob Kerry. And Dick Durbin. And Bill Clinton. Even Ted Kennedy had claimed that the “legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life.”
From 1976 to 1984 the Democratic Party platform also included language that hedged on abortion: "We fully recognize the religious and ethical concerns which many Americans have about abortion." That language disappeared in 1988, along with the pro-life convictions of the party leadership. By 1992 the Democrats had so thoroughly embraced abortion that Pennsylvania Governor Robert P. Casey was not allowed to speak at the convention because he didn't support the platform's abortion plank. The party's leaders feared that letting Casey speak would draw attention to the fact that pro-lifers weren't welcome at a time when 61 percent of pro-life Democrats were unaware that their party disagreed with them.
When Democratic voters realized what was happening, a seismic shift occurred. After having controlled Congress for forty years, the Democratic Party lost its dominance over the legislature. Since 1995, when Democrats lost both the House and Senate for a period of twelve years, the party has become even more entrenched in its support of abortion—and has removed all possibility of taking the high ground away from the GOP. The Democrats continue to support unfettered access to abortion even as it becomes an overwhelming political liability.
The Democrats cheered when the Supreme Court legalized with Roe v. Wade and secured abortion on demand with Doe v. Bolton. But the effect on their party has been almost completely negative. By taking the issue away from the states and putting it in the hands of the federal government, the Supreme Court ensured that a legislator's views on the issues would become a consideration in every Congressional election. For the past two decade, the issue has been one of the most decisive in determining voting pattern and cost them the support of previously loyal constituencies. Many Catholics and evangelical Christians who had supported the Democratic Party since the days of FDR now refuse to vote for what Ramesh Ponnuru has dubbed “the party of death.”
Fortunately for the Democrats, many people are still unaware that abortion on demand is the law of the land. Fewer still are aware, despite the issue being a major point of discussion in the recent health care debate, of the radically pro-abortion position supported by the Democratic Party. Although the country is still divided about abortion, polls consistently show that only 26 percent support the Democrat's abortion on demand position and that 61 percent oppose federal funding for the procedure. Does the average Democrat—particularly the Catholic and evangelicals in the party—realize that their party’s leadership and the majority of their elected representatives opposes all such limits—even those such as partial-birth abortion that border on infanticide?
Perhaps its better for them to remain ignorant for any opposition would prove impotent. Party leaders and strategists know that while they can ignore the pro-life contingent they must pledge their sacred allegiance to the abortion lobby. They realize to even suggest that Democratic legislators might want to temper their pro-abortion stance would send NARAL and NOW and other pro-abortion groups into a frenzy. So they cower and submit and deny the obvious political liabilities in order to pacify the extreme factions of the party.
In the meantime, many Democrats in Congress—from the handful of pro-lifers to numerous moderate pro-choicers—secretly pray that the Roberts Court will overturn Roe and send the issue back to the states. If the unconstitutional precedent is finally overturned the Democrat leadership will feign outrage and fume about back alley abortions—but they know that nothing will really change. Abortion will still be available in California and New York and banned—as it effectively is now—in South Dakota and Mississippi. But they'll have gained something that will elude them now and in the future: A chance to gain the loyalty and respect of Americans who care about the civil rights of the unborn.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things.
Comments:
3.22.2010 | 12:46pm
KDZ says:
Pro-lifers haven't used all of their ammunition. They have not pressed home the point that viability is a vacuous criterion for abortion. The pro-choice view, if it were logical, would draw the line at birth. That is morally unacceptable, but it's the only coherent criterion that honest pro-choicers have. In that sense, Roe and Doe are undeniably radical. Very few Americans understand this. The point should be hammered home repeatedly.
3.22.2010 | 2:31pm
david says:
You cannot be a Christian actively walking the walk and vote Democratic,
period. On the Stupak switch, you had to be kindergarten-grade naive to
believe a Democrat would do any but these days....(I am no longer Republican either). Randy Travis' song is appropriate for these folks...," I told you soo...."
All of us with functioning brains and open eyes and ears have been George
Strait's hit since election day, "Just give it away.....".
period. On the Stupak switch, you had to be kindergarten-grade naive to
believe a Democrat would do any but these days....(I am no longer Republican either). Randy Travis' song is appropriate for these folks...," I told you soo...."
All of us with functioning brains and open eyes and ears have been George
Strait's hit since election day, "Just give it away.....".
3.22.2010 | 2:31pm
Kent Wendler says:
"Abortion" has become an "antiseptic" term, around so long it no long evokes much moral revulsion. However, "homicide" is still quite "septic" as a word. What I wonder is how long it will be until abortion is recast as "homicide" (which it is) in the public square?
Also, how long before even the most liberal of tribunals realize that no one can be compelled to be complicit in the commission of a homicide?
Also, how long before even the most liberal of tribunals realize that no one can be compelled to be complicit in the commission of a homicide?
3.22.2010 | 3:15pm
david says:
I am a hard-core anti-infantcideer and have been spit on by lefties driving by
planned parenthood when we were praying and petitioning outside. However,
when our Catholic Universities, social misjustice priests and layity and the bulk
of the American people don't care enough to do anything about it, the culture of
death is here to stay. Over half the US cares more about American Idol than
any one political issue, let alone one this big. Till we "prosecute" violators of our
real practicing Catholic teachings, we'll have lawless children Catholics running
things. Statements have to be clear, contoversial and decisive...by what is done
not said...or it is all meaningless blather.
planned parenthood when we were praying and petitioning outside. However,
when our Catholic Universities, social misjustice priests and layity and the bulk
of the American people don't care enough to do anything about it, the culture of
death is here to stay. Over half the US cares more about American Idol than
any one political issue, let alone one this big. Till we "prosecute" violators of our
real practicing Catholic teachings, we'll have lawless children Catholics running
things. Statements have to be clear, contoversial and decisive...by what is done
not said...or it is all meaningless blather.
3.22.2010 | 3:19pm
Paul says:
Joe,
I'm certainly not disagreeing with what you say. But concerning the bill just passed, democrats and supporters of the legislation (including Mr. Stupak) will say that you're ignoring the President's executive order. They might add that NOW wasn't incensed with the President over nothing. So I think you need to frame your argument here a bit like you're arguing for a point that's a bit counterintuitive. That is, you need to argue why this legislation is pro-abortion in spite of the executive order issued yesterday--an order that, as noted, incensed NOW and won the support of Mr. Stupak. You might point out that executive orders are law-like but are also easily overturned--any President can rescind the order at any point and any act of the legislature contrary to the order trumps or overturns the order. Hence using an executive order to protect life or to ensure that federal funds are kept from paying for abortions is at best a tenuous way to protect life and at worse a temporary appeasement to get the law passed--but a policy that is easily changed the moment it can be gotten away with. What's puzzling about Stupak is that he would go from sponsoring such a strong amendment for the protection of human life to concurring in a policy that constitutes the weakest form of legal protection that life could be given--and an incoherent protection at that given the allowance for federal funding for abortion in the instances of rape or incest.
I'm certainly not disagreeing with what you say. But concerning the bill just passed, democrats and supporters of the legislation (including Mr. Stupak) will say that you're ignoring the President's executive order. They might add that NOW wasn't incensed with the President over nothing. So I think you need to frame your argument here a bit like you're arguing for a point that's a bit counterintuitive. That is, you need to argue why this legislation is pro-abortion in spite of the executive order issued yesterday--an order that, as noted, incensed NOW and won the support of Mr. Stupak. You might point out that executive orders are law-like but are also easily overturned--any President can rescind the order at any point and any act of the legislature contrary to the order trumps or overturns the order. Hence using an executive order to protect life or to ensure that federal funds are kept from paying for abortions is at best a tenuous way to protect life and at worse a temporary appeasement to get the law passed--but a policy that is easily changed the moment it can be gotten away with. What's puzzling about Stupak is that he would go from sponsoring such a strong amendment for the protection of human life to concurring in a policy that constitutes the weakest form of legal protection that life could be given--and an incoherent protection at that given the allowance for federal funding for abortion in the instances of rape or incest.
3.22.2010 | 3:47pm
Bill says:
Mr. Carter,
During the house debate someone, I think it was Speaker Pelosi oddly enough, referenced the Declaration of Independence. The signers of that document realized the inalienability of the right to life, and they did so without benefit of the scientific instruments and medical knowledge we take for granted today. For them that right was "self-evident!" It would be helpful if journalists on TV, radio and newspapers would start asking pro-abortion advocates if they regret having been born and if their mothers had any regrets.
During the house debate someone, I think it was Speaker Pelosi oddly enough, referenced the Declaration of Independence. The signers of that document realized the inalienability of the right to life, and they did so without benefit of the scientific instruments and medical knowledge we take for granted today. For them that right was "self-evident!" It would be helpful if journalists on TV, radio and newspapers would start asking pro-abortion advocates if they regret having been born and if their mothers had any regrets.
3.22.2010 | 4:22pm
Craig A. says:
It seems that if an executive order conflicts with the law of the land, then the law takes precedence. The law of the land will of course be the Senate health care bill, so it's hard to see how the executive order does anything meaningful.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) released the following statement on the Stupak deal:
“The law of the land trumps any Executive Order, which can be reversed or altered at the stroke of a pen by this or any subsequent President without any congressional approval or notice. Moreover, while an Executive Order can direct members of the executive branch, it cannot direct the private sector.
“Because of Roe v. Wade, courts have interpreted the decision as a statutory mandate that the government must provide federal funding for elective abortion in through federal programs. In other words, no Executive Order or regulation can override a statutory mandate unless Congress passes a law that prohibits federal funding from being used in this manner."
I think we have all been played like fools by Stupak and the Democrats. What were we thinking? How could we believe that he, or any elected Democrat, would stand up to political pressure, when push came to shove, and affirm the dignity of unborn life?
Phyllis Schlafly's comments seem appropriate:
"Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn't willfully align themselves with the Party of Death."
"This vote will expose the myth of the 'pro-life Democrat.' With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20100321/pl_usnw/DC74083_1
(Sorry for the quotes. Just want to make sure no one thinks I'm making these things up.)
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) released the following statement on the Stupak deal:
“The law of the land trumps any Executive Order, which can be reversed or altered at the stroke of a pen by this or any subsequent President without any congressional approval or notice. Moreover, while an Executive Order can direct members of the executive branch, it cannot direct the private sector.
“Because of Roe v. Wade, courts have interpreted the decision as a statutory mandate that the government must provide federal funding for elective abortion in through federal programs. In other words, no Executive Order or regulation can override a statutory mandate unless Congress passes a law that prohibits federal funding from being used in this manner."
I think we have all been played like fools by Stupak and the Democrats. What were we thinking? How could we believe that he, or any elected Democrat, would stand up to political pressure, when push came to shove, and affirm the dignity of unborn life?
Phyllis Schlafly's comments seem appropriate:
"Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn't willfully align themselves with the Party of Death."
"This vote will expose the myth of the 'pro-life Democrat.' With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20100321/pl_usnw/DC74083_1
(Sorry for the quotes. Just want to make sure no one thinks I'm making these things up.)
3.22.2010 | 5:18pm
Chris Burns says:
This is mostly consistent with how I see the democratic party and its attachment to abortion as a right.
However, I strongly disagree with the implicit suggestion that the Republican party is the answer, or that pro-life democrats are worthless, that they have "sold-out" by ratifying the Senate bill. If anything, it is republicans who have sold out their pro-life credentials by putting partisan tactics ahead of real opportunities to invest pro-life principles in the health care reform bill.
The Senate bill is of course inferior to the house bill, on many many counts, especially on how it treats abortion. But republicans who are pretending to oppose health care reform on the abortion issue are using us as tools.
The Senate abortion restrictions essentially conserve the status quo. The house language actually moves the ball downfield for us (if you doubt this, I ask you to actually read both bills. Abortion groups hate both amendments, and republican partisans want us all to believe the senate bill funds abortions whether it does or not).
To torpedo health insurance reform because the senate bill merely holds the line on abortion, is a tragedy. The Republicans are using us as tools to further their pro-business agenda, which we should hold with great skepticism.
The Church supports the basic premise of health care reform: that all Americans, and especially the poor and sick, deserve access to the health care system and not be arbitrarily shut out in order to further the profit interests of corporations. The Republican establishment is not interested in this principle. We could have achieved a health care bill with the Stupak amendment, if Senate republicans were not hell-bent on destroying Obama at any cost. Instead, they have held their pro-corporate agenda above the pro-life agenda, and preferential consideration for the poor.
However, I strongly disagree with the implicit suggestion that the Republican party is the answer, or that pro-life democrats are worthless, that they have "sold-out" by ratifying the Senate bill. If anything, it is republicans who have sold out their pro-life credentials by putting partisan tactics ahead of real opportunities to invest pro-life principles in the health care reform bill.
The Senate bill is of course inferior to the house bill, on many many counts, especially on how it treats abortion. But republicans who are pretending to oppose health care reform on the abortion issue are using us as tools.
The Senate abortion restrictions essentially conserve the status quo. The house language actually moves the ball downfield for us (if you doubt this, I ask you to actually read both bills. Abortion groups hate both amendments, and republican partisans want us all to believe the senate bill funds abortions whether it does or not).
To torpedo health insurance reform because the senate bill merely holds the line on abortion, is a tragedy. The Republicans are using us as tools to further their pro-business agenda, which we should hold with great skepticism.
The Church supports the basic premise of health care reform: that all Americans, and especially the poor and sick, deserve access to the health care system and not be arbitrarily shut out in order to further the profit interests of corporations. The Republican establishment is not interested in this principle. We could have achieved a health care bill with the Stupak amendment, if Senate republicans were not hell-bent on destroying Obama at any cost. Instead, they have held their pro-corporate agenda above the pro-life agenda, and preferential consideration for the poor.
3.22.2010 | 5:55pm
Michelle says:
I was very disappointed when the local Sisters of Mercy wrote a letter to the editor urging our congressman to vote for the bill. They stated that they were personally opposed to abortion, using the same language that these so-called "Pro-choice" groups use. They cited the support of the Catholic Healthcare Association and retired Austin Bishop John McCarthy. What they did not state was that Catholics for a Free Choice and other dissident groups were supporting the legislation.
McCarthy is not the most credible source of support. He had his own share of problems when, at the turn of the century, Seton (a Catholic institution) had bought Brackenridge Hospital and it was alleged that abortions were being performed there. Some of the Austin faithful wrote to the Vatican and McCarthy was called up for a meeting with then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. McCarthy soon retired.
The sad thing is that part of the blame rests squarely on the USCCB. When they issued the document "Faithful Citizenship" it was pretty much a paper tiger that said nothing and offered no real guidance. Would that we had bishops of the calibre of the late Father Richard John Neuhaus, men who are not afraid to take a stand on something. My own bishop sent a last-ditch letter urging us to call our Congressman. However, this was way too little, way too late, as the Congressman's phone number was either busy or his voice mail box was full.
What the bishops need to do is to take to heart the 2004 letter issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and start denying Holy Communion to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and those Catholics who voted for the bill. As far as I am concerned, my Congressman and Congressman Stupak are the modern day Judases who sold the lives of countless of unborn children for the political equivalent of 30 pieces of silver. The Catholic Healthcare Association and Bishop McCarthy are not too far behind. One can only hope that when it is time for the Vatican visitation to arrive at the doorstep of the Sisters of Mercy, the nuns will be held accountable for the damage they have done.
McCarthy is not the most credible source of support. He had his own share of problems when, at the turn of the century, Seton (a Catholic institution) had bought Brackenridge Hospital and it was alleged that abortions were being performed there. Some of the Austin faithful wrote to the Vatican and McCarthy was called up for a meeting with then-Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. McCarthy soon retired.
The sad thing is that part of the blame rests squarely on the USCCB. When they issued the document "Faithful Citizenship" it was pretty much a paper tiger that said nothing and offered no real guidance. Would that we had bishops of the calibre of the late Father Richard John Neuhaus, men who are not afraid to take a stand on something. My own bishop sent a last-ditch letter urging us to call our Congressman. However, this was way too little, way too late, as the Congressman's phone number was either busy or his voice mail box was full.
What the bishops need to do is to take to heart the 2004 letter issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and start denying Holy Communion to the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and those Catholics who voted for the bill. As far as I am concerned, my Congressman and Congressman Stupak are the modern day Judases who sold the lives of countless of unborn children for the political equivalent of 30 pieces of silver. The Catholic Healthcare Association and Bishop McCarthy are not too far behind. One can only hope that when it is time for the Vatican visitation to arrive at the doorstep of the Sisters of Mercy, the nuns will be held accountable for the damage they have done.
3.22.2010 | 7:25pm
Chris Burns says:
This is mostly consistent with how I see the democratic party and its attachment to abortion as a right.
However, I strongly disagree with the implicit suggestion that the republican party is the answer, or that pro-life democrats are worthless, that they have "sold-out" by ratifying the Senate bill. If anything, it is republicans who have sold out their pro-life credentials by putting partisan tactics ahead of real opportunities to invest pro-life principles in the health care reform bill.
The Senate bill is of course inferior to the house bill, on many many counts, especially on how it treats abortion. But republicans who are pretending to oppose health care reform on the abortion issue are using us as tools.
The Senate abortion restrictions essentially conserves the status quo, and rests its hat on the continued presense of the Hyde Amendment. The house language actually moves the ball downfield for us (if you doubt this, I ask you to actually read both bills. Republican partisans want us all to believe the senate bill funds abortions whether it does or not, and abortion groups hate both amendments).
To torpedo health insurance reform because the senate bill merely holds the line on abortion, is a tragedy. The Republicans are using us as tools to further their pro-business agenda, which we should hold with great skepticism.
The Church supports the basic premise of health care reform: that all Americans, and especially the poor and sick, deserve access to the health care system and not be arbitrarily shut out in order to further the profit interests of corporations. The republican establishment is not interested in this principle. We could have achieved a health care bill with the Stupak amendment, if Senate republicans were not hell-bent on destroying Obama at any cost. Instead, they have held their pro-corporate agenda above the pro-life agenda, and preferential consideration for the poor.
However, I strongly disagree with the implicit suggestion that the republican party is the answer, or that pro-life democrats are worthless, that they have "sold-out" by ratifying the Senate bill. If anything, it is republicans who have sold out their pro-life credentials by putting partisan tactics ahead of real opportunities to invest pro-life principles in the health care reform bill.
The Senate bill is of course inferior to the house bill, on many many counts, especially on how it treats abortion. But republicans who are pretending to oppose health care reform on the abortion issue are using us as tools.
The Senate abortion restrictions essentially conserves the status quo, and rests its hat on the continued presense of the Hyde Amendment. The house language actually moves the ball downfield for us (if you doubt this, I ask you to actually read both bills. Republican partisans want us all to believe the senate bill funds abortions whether it does or not, and abortion groups hate both amendments).
To torpedo health insurance reform because the senate bill merely holds the line on abortion, is a tragedy. The Republicans are using us as tools to further their pro-business agenda, which we should hold with great skepticism.
The Church supports the basic premise of health care reform: that all Americans, and especially the poor and sick, deserve access to the health care system and not be arbitrarily shut out in order to further the profit interests of corporations. The republican establishment is not interested in this principle. We could have achieved a health care bill with the Stupak amendment, if Senate republicans were not hell-bent on destroying Obama at any cost. Instead, they have held their pro-corporate agenda above the pro-life agenda, and preferential consideration for the poor.
3.22.2010 | 9:07pm
Alicia says:
I want my right to choose. And I want my right not to go bankrupt when I get sick. The fight for healthcare is not about abortion but about insurance companies. They hide behind these tough issues so they can keep raping the american people. Get off your high religious horses. Funny the most religious have the least compassion and the most greed. I would think showing up every sunday would do more for you then that. But I guess religion is only worth paying attention to when it suites you, isn't it. What about all the people who die everyday due to our third world healthcare? Oh, I guess because they have been born their lives don't matter. Regardless of my pro-choice values, abortion has nothing to do with this bill, do your homework. Thank god our president is trying to help us make these needed changes, because Europe was starting to look a lot more appealing then the treadmill of the U.S. Sad I think we rank about 37 in the world for healthcare, really shows you right there.
3.22.2010 | 10:59pm
Bret Lythgoe says:
The Democratic party has been been held hostage for years by NARAL, and other pro-choice groups. Never mind that most ordinary Democrats, do not support abortion on demand. But considering that the Democrats in the house voted for the Obama health care bill, despite most americans opposition to it, one should be unsuprised that Democrats are willing to bypass the will of the people regarding abortion.
3.23.2010 | 12:58am
Phil Stone says:
All I have seen on the Catholic Websites is that HEalth Reform doesn't matter, its important only that it is Pro Life.
Well thats wrong on both counts. THe Nuns, virtually all the nuns in America, women who can and do read, agreed that there was no Federal Funding for Abortion in bill. I read it myself and came to the same conclusion. And they know that it is impoprtant to care about our neighbors.
Mr Stupak wanted a bill which was an Anti-Abortion bill, one which would make it more difficult for woman to get abortion insurance. But like the Republicans have done for a year, he played to unjustified fear. And now all the people whom he helped fool remain fooled. He shall reap what he sows.
Well thats wrong on both counts. THe Nuns, virtually all the nuns in America, women who can and do read, agreed that there was no Federal Funding for Abortion in bill. I read it myself and came to the same conclusion. And they know that it is impoprtant to care about our neighbors.
Mr Stupak wanted a bill which was an Anti-Abortion bill, one which would make it more difficult for woman to get abortion insurance. But like the Republicans have done for a year, he played to unjustified fear. And now all the people whom he helped fool remain fooled. He shall reap what he sows.
3.23.2010 | 7:13am
sanpietrini says:
What I am very much afraid of is that I cannot conceive of any possibility of ever voting for a Democrat – ever. I am no longer astounded that I have gone from an active, card-carrying Democrat in the days of Morris Udall and Jimmy Carter (to say nothing of their predecessors), to simply: “throw the bums out.” Frankly, I feel betrayed. And I will not forget.
3.23.2010 | 4:20pm
KDZ says:
Craig A.:
The second paragraph of Minority Leader John Boehner's statement that you quote is confused. Roe, by itself, does not require that abortions be federally funded, nor does it imply that. Neither does the copmpanion case of Doe v. Bolton. Those decisions are bad enough without anyone dragging in federally-funded abortion. Maybe Rep. Boehner only meant that Roe has been understood by some people to require federal funding of abortion for indigent women, but that is not the most natural construction of his words. Boehner's statement is misleading, at best. On the other hand, he is exactly right about President Obama's stunningly deceitful Executive Order.
The second paragraph of Minority Leader John Boehner's statement that you quote is confused. Roe, by itself, does not require that abortions be federally funded, nor does it imply that. Neither does the copmpanion case of Doe v. Bolton. Those decisions are bad enough without anyone dragging in federally-funded abortion. Maybe Rep. Boehner only meant that Roe has been understood by some people to require federal funding of abortion for indigent women, but that is not the most natural construction of his words. Boehner's statement is misleading, at best. On the other hand, he is exactly right about President Obama's stunningly deceitful Executive Order.
3.24.2010 | 5:32am
Blaise Pascal says:
"How Abortion is Killing the Democratic Party"
It kills the Democratic Party also in another way, because its mainly Democrats who kill their children.
It kills the Democratic Party also in another way, because its mainly Democrats who kill their children.
3.24.2010 | 10:05am
Jim K. Bond says:
Maybe instead of attacking Democrats and loving Republicans, a hard look be given to the Catholics who ignore the faith and put these babykillers in office?
Bart Stupak forced debate on, and gave visibility to, the need for stronger pro-life protections in the health care legislation where there otherwise would be no debate. You folks with the vitriolic attacks of Stupak failed to even step forward in support of Stupak when the guy attached the stronger language he crafted onto the original House of Representatives health care bill. It's no wonder pro-life Democrats run for the hills because the few who have the courage to buck their party and the ardent pro-abortion crazies find themselves in peril even when they do the right thing.
How come an anti-abortion Executive Order is deemed (wrongly) as to be without merit by folks here when these same folks (and the Relevant Radio crowd) lauded George Bush for his Executive Orders and later condemned Obama for his actions in issuing Executive Orders after taking office? See Mexico City ...
The blatant ignorance of the value of an Executive Order (and its impact on rule-making) and how future Congresses may or may not also undo health care, Hyde abortion protections reflects on the emotion not the intelligence of this discussion.
Mr Carter's campaign against the Democratic Party ignores the trojan horse that is the Republican Party: its sadistic use of pro-life rhetoric only to win an election but then to ignore any attempt to repeal Roe, mitigate abortion or sincerely put into law strong anti-abortion language. Afterall, the Republicans controlled things for 12 years in Washington DC and aside from breaking the taxpayers back with unconscionable deficits, an impossible war and vastly expanded social programs, your point was what?
Bart Stupak forced debate on, and gave visibility to, the need for stronger pro-life protections in the health care legislation where there otherwise would be no debate. You folks with the vitriolic attacks of Stupak failed to even step forward in support of Stupak when the guy attached the stronger language he crafted onto the original House of Representatives health care bill. It's no wonder pro-life Democrats run for the hills because the few who have the courage to buck their party and the ardent pro-abortion crazies find themselves in peril even when they do the right thing.
How come an anti-abortion Executive Order is deemed (wrongly) as to be without merit by folks here when these same folks (and the Relevant Radio crowd) lauded George Bush for his Executive Orders and later condemned Obama for his actions in issuing Executive Orders after taking office? See Mexico City ...
The blatant ignorance of the value of an Executive Order (and its impact on rule-making) and how future Congresses may or may not also undo health care, Hyde abortion protections reflects on the emotion not the intelligence of this discussion.
Mr Carter's campaign against the Democratic Party ignores the trojan horse that is the Republican Party: its sadistic use of pro-life rhetoric only to win an election but then to ignore any attempt to repeal Roe, mitigate abortion or sincerely put into law strong anti-abortion language. Afterall, the Republicans controlled things for 12 years in Washington DC and aside from breaking the taxpayers back with unconscionable deficits, an impossible war and vastly expanded social programs, your point was what?
3.24.2010 | 12:44pm
Artaban says:
Alicia: I sense much fear (and anger) in you.
1. You say we rank 37th in the world for healthcare, and that is rubbish. You need to do your research. The US leads the world in medical advances and innovations by any number of measures (look up how many Americans have won the Nobel Prize in Medicine--we dominate that field). Why do the wealthy from countries with universal healthcare come here for care? Because we do have the best care in the world, and yes, the best is often more expensive.
2. You mention bankruptcy and health bills. The reality is 700,000 people go bankrupt each year because of healthcare costs. But people also recover from bankruptcy. Furthermore, while that 700,000 may seem high, but it's only .2% of the US population! Does it may sense to ram through a plan that's going to cost AT LEAST $950 Billion--and help bankrupt the country--for .2%?
Any rational person must conclude the answer to be "NO". Private charities can help those struggling with medical debt (I've been part of such groups twice), and there are already many protections in place for those in such debt. As long as one is making some sort of regular payment, they can't put you in the poor house.
As for the Executive Order, Bart Stupak himself has admitted President Obama (or any future president) can unilaterally repeal his Executive Order at any time. It's a very weak protection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78H_cyZUolk&feature=player_embedded
Furthermore, Executive Orders can be overturned by Congress in several ways, though there is disagreement as to how easy it is to do that.
1. You say we rank 37th in the world for healthcare, and that is rubbish. You need to do your research. The US leads the world in medical advances and innovations by any number of measures (look up how many Americans have won the Nobel Prize in Medicine--we dominate that field). Why do the wealthy from countries with universal healthcare come here for care? Because we do have the best care in the world, and yes, the best is often more expensive.
2. You mention bankruptcy and health bills. The reality is 700,000 people go bankrupt each year because of healthcare costs. But people also recover from bankruptcy. Furthermore, while that 700,000 may seem high, but it's only .2% of the US population! Does it may sense to ram through a plan that's going to cost AT LEAST $950 Billion--and help bankrupt the country--for .2%?
Any rational person must conclude the answer to be "NO". Private charities can help those struggling with medical debt (I've been part of such groups twice), and there are already many protections in place for those in such debt. As long as one is making some sort of regular payment, they can't put you in the poor house.
As for the Executive Order, Bart Stupak himself has admitted President Obama (or any future president) can unilaterally repeal his Executive Order at any time. It's a very weak protection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78H_cyZUolk&feature=player_embedded
Furthermore, Executive Orders can be overturned by Congress in several ways, though there is disagreement as to how easy it is to do that.
3.25.2010 | 10:36am
Pr. Dan Biles says:
If this is all true as you write, Mr. Carter, how come Democrats keep winning elections? How come in recent years they won back the House, the Senate, and the Presidency? Why arent' they getting voted out of office on account of this issue (as I wish they were)?
3.28.2010 | 1:05pm
John Sobert Sylvest says:
re: 1) Last night 219 members of in the House of Representatives proved and 2) The refusal to prohibit federal funding of abortions in the health care bill shows
There seems to be a valid argument going here. In order to be sound, however, the definitions employed in its premises would have to successfully refer to reality. That is to say that, in this case, one must establish the fact that there was such a refusal. It thus lost its syllogistic force for me in the first 2 sentences.
There seems to be a valid argument going here. In order to be sound, however, the definitions employed in its premises would have to successfully refer to reality. That is to say that, in this case, one must establish the fact that there was such a refusal. It thus lost its syllogistic force for me in the first 2 sentences.
3.29.2010 | 3:13pm
louis sockalexis says:
In fact the notion that we are 37th in some rubbish survey regarding helthcare is just that-rubbish. Such "surveys" are bandied about by people who parrot "facts" about which they know very little. In fact by any standard healthacare in the USA is the best in the world-period and by whatever legitimate standard one chooses to measure.
I defy anyone to supply legitimate studies that in fact show anything of the sort of "inferior health care " blather that proponents of the current and recently ramrodded legislation used as ammunition. Factual studies not anectdotal tear jerking stories about isolated cases. The system of healthcare in America is (was) not perfect and absolutely needed revision but not what we just were handed(had stuffed down our throats by deaf politicos)
I defy anyone to supply legitimate studies that in fact show anything of the sort of "inferior health care " blather that proponents of the current and recently ramrodded legislation used as ammunition. Factual studies not anectdotal tear jerking stories about isolated cases. The system of healthcare in America is (was) not perfect and absolutely needed revision but not what we just were handed(had stuffed down our throats by deaf politicos)
3.30.2010 | 11:37pm
Joe the Plumber says:
I am sorry people, the fact that Harvard or Hopkins or Cleveland Clinic are the best in the world means nothing to the poor people, republicans included, who are not lucky enough to have their health issues covered by insurance (or have ANY insurance in the first place). The Nobel Prize winners won't come to your rescue when you are unemployed, with 3 kids, and foreclosure looming. If you were personally in that situation, wouldn't you would wish you were in Sweden? Although who knows, perhaps it's better to die an honest man than submit to "socialist" ways and their liberal lies.
4.6.2010 | 1:45pm
Dean Clancy says:
Jim K. Bond's comment requires a response.
During their 12 years in the congressional majority, Republicans enacted and defended over fierce Democratic opposition the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, the bill to define the death of an expectant mother with a fetus in utero as two homicides rather than one, an amendment prohibiting federal funding of experimentation on living human embryos, an amendment banning the patenting of human embryos, and of course sustained the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion under the health and human services appropriations bill. Republicans also stood up for the conscience rights of pro-life health care professionals, something you would expect at least "pro-life" Democrats to support, but alas not. When Republicans pushed to extend the Hyde Amendment principle to Obamacare, Democrats as usual resisted and misleadingly denied that any abortions will be funded in Obamacare, when the law clearly says they will, as evidenced by the fact that people who get their insurance through exchanges will have to pay a special fee to cover the cost of abortion coverage, whether they are opposed in conscience or not. The Republican party has many flaws and imperfections, I will be the first to admit. It is certainly too close to soulless corporations, and often too comfortable with (and worse, clueless about) the nightmare world the Progressives have built and keep a-building. But as for being disingenuous on the issue of protecting innocent unborn human lives, and people's conscience rights not to take part in the taking of such lives, the GOP has nothing to be ashamed of. They even in the same league with the Democrats.
During their 12 years in the congressional majority, Republicans enacted and defended over fierce Democratic opposition the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, the bill to define the death of an expectant mother with a fetus in utero as two homicides rather than one, an amendment prohibiting federal funding of experimentation on living human embryos, an amendment banning the patenting of human embryos, and of course sustained the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion under the health and human services appropriations bill. Republicans also stood up for the conscience rights of pro-life health care professionals, something you would expect at least "pro-life" Democrats to support, but alas not. When Republicans pushed to extend the Hyde Amendment principle to Obamacare, Democrats as usual resisted and misleadingly denied that any abortions will be funded in Obamacare, when the law clearly says they will, as evidenced by the fact that people who get their insurance through exchanges will have to pay a special fee to cover the cost of abortion coverage, whether they are opposed in conscience or not. The Republican party has many flaws and imperfections, I will be the first to admit. It is certainly too close to soulless corporations, and often too comfortable with (and worse, clueless about) the nightmare world the Progressives have built and keep a-building. But as for being disingenuous on the issue of protecting innocent unborn human lives, and people's conscience rights not to take part in the taking of such lives, the GOP has nothing to be ashamed of. They even in the same league with the Democrats.
4.6.2010 | 2:11pm
Dean Clancy says:
PS -- I accidentally omitted the word "ain't" in the last sentence of my post above.
I also wanted but failed to note that the GOP has fought -- not always successfully, alas -- to put anti-Roe judges on the Supreme Court. Democrats Clinton and Obama, by contrast, have proudly applied a pro-Roe litmus test to all their Supreme Court appointments -- always successfully, alas.
I also wanted but failed to note that the GOP has fought -- not always successfully, alas -- to put anti-Roe judges on the Supreme Court. Democrats Clinton and Obama, by contrast, have proudly applied a pro-Roe litmus test to all their Supreme Court appointments -- always successfully, alas.
6.29.2010 | 12:23pm
Pro Life says:
The question is, Do Catholics really believe what they say they believe and pray for? That has to be asked because half or more of the Catholics, including the clergy, continue to give their name identification and votes to the political organization that is diabolically opposed to what they say they believe and pray for. It’s not that those Catholics should become Republicans; they should stop being Democrats. They can be what ever they want – just “stop feeding the beast.” There is life after leaving the Democrat Party, I know. Abortion is a spiritual issue, not political. Our Creed and our Lord’s Prayer make it spiritual issue to us Catholics. And as citizens, it concerns the only right in our Constitution that is being denied.
6.30.2011 | 12:21pm
KATRINACastro23 says:
One acknowledges that our life is expensive, nevertheless we need money for different things and not every person earns enough money. Hence to get some personal loans and just collateral loan should be good solution.
