The final obstacle to passage was cleared a few hours before the vote, when Obama and Democratic leaders reached a compromise with anti-abortion lawmakers whose rebellion had left the outcome in doubt. The president issued an executive order pledging that no federal funds would be used for elective abortion, satisfying Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan and a handful of like-minded lawmakers.Some of you are thankful for the passing of this bill, while others are upset about it. I try to keep politics out of my blog (these days) since it's not right to mix faith and politics unnecessarily, but let's be sure to keep in mind what a stand was made today concerning the rights of unborn children.
It was close. Really close. A few more votes the other way and we would have allowed the federal government to kill unborn babies with our tax dollars through this bill (I'd rather fund orphanages). While some have been insisting that abortion is a woman's right, others have maintained that an unborn person has the right to live; the passing of today's bill shows a victory for the champions of unborn babies (even if it's bittersweet for those who oppose the bill). Today, we saw career politicians who were willing to break with party lines against a popular president in order to make a stand. No matter how this plays out in your own personal politics, lets remember that it was a very close call for the unborn. Today was a victory for them - and it very nearly went the other way.
7 comments:
"I try to keep politics out of my blog (these days) since it's not right to mix faith and politics unnecessarily, but let's be sure to keep in mind what a stand was made today concerning the rights of unborn children"
I don't follow the idea that "it's not right to mix faith and politics unnecessarily". I suppose one might say we shouldn't mix faith with anything "unnecessarily" - if it's to be mixed at all it should only be out of necessity. Or someone else might say that faith should never be "mixed" with anything under any circumstance depending on how they mean to use the word "mixed". But shouldn't our faith inform our politics at all times? Isn't this at all times necessary?
But to the main issue you raised - there was no stand made today at all. Stupak and the other the congressmen who folded know it. The executive order, if it's ever issued at all, is empty and meaningless. It's not law. The suggestion that it would do anything is a deception and pure fantasy. Don't believe it. The federal government will be allowed to kill unborn babies with our tax dollars as a direct result of the passage of this bill. There was no victory tonight. The only "stand" was a grandstand. Stupak knows it as does the most murderous president in the history of our nation.
Regarding the passage of the bill, and giving the highest benefit of the doubt to the intentions of those who supported it (which few of them deserve), I will quote C.S Lewis in response to their vote. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
I wrote this because it is remarkable that a stand was made at all that allowed protecting babies to be a deciding issue. That's not the typical way of things when Democrats are in power. Obviously, people will try to get around this executive order and obviously Stupak is rather shifty, but none of that is really relevant to what I wrote. I was very specifically praising the role of pro-choice activism.
I see what you're saying a little more clearly now. I’m sure you meant to say “pro-life” at the end of your comment.
But I still can't share your optimistic view that there was a stand was made to protect babies. There wasn’t.
All indications point to this being a slight of hand magic trick played out to impress pro-life voters rather than anyone actually taking a stand against abortion. I believe it was a PR stunk played out in order to garner empathy and even support from those opposed to using tax dollars to fund abortion. If I’m right, this was never a genuine hurdle to the passage of the bill. It was played out for drama and to convince people that there are at least a small handful of those in the party that do oppose abortion. If there are, they weren’t part of the Stupak group. You might look to the motivation of the 33 Democrats that joined with the Republicans in opposition. Maybe there are a couple there. The Stupak group was well aware that the Obama promise of an executive order will, if it even happens, have no weight of law and will be crushed at the first legal challenge.
It may have been a stunt or a joke or a lie. That doesn't change the fact that the bill was passed in a form that protects babies, and that is good. For now, they are protected from this bill.
What part of the bill do you feel protects babies? The protection that is supposed to come is supposed to come later - more importantly it won't be protection at all.
Both sides of the debate agree on this. For example, per The National Right to Life Committee, "The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing," the group said. "It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill." And House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said "Make no mistake, a 'yes' vote on the Democrats' health care bill is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions." Phyllis Schlafly, president and founder of Eagle Forum, said "Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world." "Any formerly pro-life Democrat who casts a 'Yes' vote for this Senate health care bill tonight will be forever remembered as being among the deciding votes which facilitated the largest expansion of abortion services since Roe v. Wade."
On the other side, Democrat Rep. Diana DeGette., an abortion-rights supporter, said she doesn't have a problem with the executive order because "it doesn't change anything."
There is no protection in the bill currently. There is no protection on the way. If I’m missing something then I’d be really glad to find out what it is. I’m looking for any sort of silver lining around this disaster.
I'm not talking about this any further. Sorry, but I've been getting the same thing on Facebook all day and for some reason no one can understand I'm talking about. Maybe I am making no sense and I'm completely wrong, but what you are saying to me is not lining up with what I'm saying - as if we are having different conversations. I'm happy to assume that this is due to my own communication problems and lack of understanding.
That's cool. I hope I didn't seem antagonistic. I've genuinely been looking for the bright side and hoping to hear of any silver lining but the more I dig into it the worse it seems.
Post a Comment