Political Hay
Blue Dog Backfire
The Democratic Party got more than it bargained for when it empowered its pro-lifers.
The more liberal pundits write off the pro-life movement, the more pro-lifers prove them wrong. A prime example: the health care overhaul bill passed by the U.S. House Saturday.
The furor over the Stupak amendment — which bans federal funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is endangered — shows that sanctity of life remains a prime-time issue. The economic slide, and voters’ almost exclusive attention to it, makes the degree of clout the pro-life issue garners doubly significant.
Even some pro-choicers get it. Writing in Kaiser Health News, Julie Appleby says, “The abortion debate rivals the controversy over the public option, the proposal to offer consumers in the new insurance exchanges a government-run insurance plan.”
That might be over-stated. Without a doubt, though, abortion coverage is one of the top three concerns for lawmakers on both sides of the isle. And, increasingly, it’s becoming the No.1 concern.
But more noteworthy than a Republican-Democrat divide on abortion funding is that the issue is bifurcating the various wings of the controlling party itself.
Democrats have comfortable majorities in the House and Senate. To boot, they have a pro-abortion ally in the White House and thus have no fear of a veto. If they kept their party united, they could pass health care reform that included abortion funding without a single Republican vote.
They’re finding it difficult. Similar to the scuffle over the public option, much of the threat to federal abortion funding is thanks to squabbles inside the Democratic Party — namely, between the Blue Dog wing and Nancy Pelosi’s liberal coalition.
Lawmakers from conservative districts envision campaign ads from their opponents next year trumpeting a yes-vote for taxpayer-funded abortions. Not a pretty scenario, particularly with political tides already shifting against the ruling political party.
The ironic part is that Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for the present crisis. By running conservative-leaning candidates in swing districts in 2006 and 2008, the party leadership achieved a majority by the numbers but not always by the ideology.
In North Carolina, for example, three Democrats defied Pelosi by voting against the latest health care proposal. Two of those lawmakers — Heath Shuler and Mike McIntyre — are pro-life and represent generally conservative districts. The third, Larry Kissell, enjoyed the strong backing of liberals in 2008. But he also hails from a conservative district, and the 2010 re-election campaign doubtless weighed heavily on his mind.
Another irony is that liberal elites were quick to announce the demise of values voters after the Republican’s 2006 electoral bloodbath, yet many of the candidates they elected that year are now the main cause of the health care reform holdup precisely because of abortion.
Regardless of the final legislative outcome, it’s a testament to the enduring importance of the pro-life cause that 64 Democrats would jump ship by signing on to the anti-abortion language. Some did so for political reasons, others out of principle. The important part is that the issue has enough power to impact votes.
It’s also a lesson for the GOP: take advantage of the issue in the 2010 elections, and don’t even think about nominating a pro-abortion candidate, or a wishy-washy one, for president in 2012.
About the Author
David N. Bass is a journalist who writes from the Old North State. Follow him on Twitter.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (35) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by David N. Bass
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/13/blue-dog-backfire
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- Happy Fourth
- Lean Feminism
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 11.13.09 @ 6:56AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Blue Dog Backfire [spectator.org] on links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 11.13.09 @ 7:07AM
The American Spectator : Blue Dog Backfire | Dog collar live today links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Northern Rebel| 11.13.09 @ 8:58AM
This Blue dog bullshit is just that. They wouldn't have signed up to be dems, if they really believed what they say they believe.
They did it because it was the easiest way to get elected, and the easiest way to stay elected, is to do what the petrified one tells them to do.
They are phonies, just like the rest of the democrats, even more so, because they want you to think they actually have a moral compass, unlike the rest of their party.
If they want to prove they have values, which they don't, then they should pull the ultimate coup, and flee the democrat party!
Could you imagine the fun that would ensue?
Chris Matthews would become impotent, and unable to ejaculate on demand when the Anti-Christ spoke! Pelosi's face would move! Harry Reid's voice would change, and he would sound like a man! Olberdork would be speechless! (Nah, that's to much to ask for.)
Which reminds me of the glee the left felt when Rush Limbaugh lost his hearing. they were so happy!
Should conservatives be denied the thrill of Olberdork going mute before our eyes?
Think about it Bluefrauds, we conservatives would vote you in forever, for performing that community service!
Bob K.| 11.13.09 @ 9:53AM
Dave Bass is whistling past the graveyard. Catholic or not, Blue Dogs will vote for the bill even if the prohibition against abortion is removed. 3 in PA are delighted with the 1990 page bill and praise it as "a historical document!"
Joe Sestak, 7th District, Catholic, Retired Admiral, US Naval Academy grad., (son of a Naval Academy grad), Harvard PhD, Gun Control advocate, disapproves of don't ask, don't tell and is running against Arlen Spector from the left for the U. S. Senate! How do you think he will vote?
Paul Kanjorski, 11 th district. A Republican early in his career and later a Democrat by convenience might vote against the bill if Speaker Pelosi doesn't scare his knickers off him first.
Chris Carney 10th District. Until last election, a longtime Republican stronghold. Catholic. A recent immigrant to PA from Iowa and the mid-west where he grew up and was educated. Still learning something about his constituency. PhD Poly Sci. Teaches at an Extension of Penn State in Scranton. States his constituency favors the bill by a 2/3rds margin based on correspondence he has received from them. The Bishop in Scranton won't like it but he will still vote for the bill any way although right now he says he won't.
KyMouse| 11.13.09 @ 11:23AM
Should federal funds be used to put children to death for the crimes of their fathers?
That's what the Stupak Amendment will do, by providing federal funding to abort babies conceived through rape or incest. I've no problem with punishing, even executing, men who commit rape or incest, but I'm against killing the babies who are conceived through such crimes. Babies are innocent and don't choose the circumstances in which they begin their lives.
In 2000, Dr. David Reardon, author of "Victims and Victors," surveyed 192 mothers who had become pregnant through rape or incest. More than 90 percent of the ones who had aborted their babies said that they would discourage other victims from doing so. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the rape victims and 100 % of the incest victims told him that abortion was NOT a good option for women in their situations.
Reardon found that in virtually every case of pregnancy after incest, the abortion was not the mother's choice; it was almost always the decision of the incestuous father. That's because abortion conceals the crime of incest, almost guaranteeing that it will continue.
Killing the baby doesn't help the young mother who has been molested -- but letting the baby live may help reclaim her self-esteem. A young mother in my state (Kentucky), who became pregnant through date-rape, has said, "I've been raped, but I've also been blessed with a beautiful baby girl. And in the end, I've gained more than I lost."
Abortion adds its own physical and emotional trauma. Many women report that their abortions felt like violations of their own bodies -- a kind of rape.
Babies conceived through rape or incest may have challenges to face as they grow, but don't we all? Julia Makimaa, who was conceived in rape, said in "Aborted Women: Silent No More" that "one of the truly perverse things that the pro-abortion movement has done is convince so many people that the child conceived in rape can never have a worthwhile life. [They] constantly depict children of rape and incest as somehow defective, tainted, unwanted...[but] we should understand, as my birth mother did, that each child is a God-made miracle...."
Does life that began through violence have less value? Why should an innocent baby pay for the crime of his/her father? The baby is not the mother's attacker, but is, in fact, a second victim.
What would your reaction be if your mother told you that YOU were conceived through rape or incest? Would you say, "I should have been aborted; my life is worthless"? Or would you say, "Thanks, Mom, for giving me a chance -- thanks for letting me live"?
Nick| 11.13.09 @ 11:45AM
KyMouse,
You rock!
Awsome comment.
Angel| 11.16.09 @ 1:40AM
Yeah, KyMouse--what Nick said. You rock, too, Nick!
Dai Alanye | 11.13.09 @ 1:36PM
Men are allowed to take human life for purposes of legal execution, war or self defense.
If we apply this to women—as I believe we should—the only justification for abortion would be self defense. If the mother's life is endangered by carrying the child to term, or the pregnancy is the result of rape, self defense is the issue.
Incest should not enter into it unless rape, either forcible or statutory, is involved.
Nick| 11.13.09 @ 2:11PM
Dai Alanye,
A woman's life is never "endangered" by her unborn baby. Abortion is never morally justified. An unborn baby defines innocence.
Self-defense is never part of the issue.
KyMouse| 11.13.09 @ 2:50PM
Dai Alanye, I'm trying hard to grasp what you mean in your final sentence: "Incest should not enter into it unless rape...is involved." Are you saying that incest is acceptable if the man committing it uses only seduction, not physical force? Perhaps tricks a young son or daughter into playing "secret" games?
If a woman is raped, the target of her "self defense" should be the man who attacked her, not her innocent baby.
You realize, don't you, that the innocent baby has no way to defend himself/herself against the abortionist's weapons -- where is the justice in that? Where is the baby's right to self-defense?
(Nick, thanks for your kind comments to me at 11:45!)
Angel| 11.16.09 @ 1:46AM
The baby is not the offender in cases of rape--the rapist is; the baby is a victim as is the mother. It's so very cruel to harm the little child for the heinous actions of its father.
Don't hurt the babies, they've done nothing wrong.
Peggy Girshman | 11.13.09 @ 2:46PM
Your reference to Kaiser Health News as a "publication of Planned Parenthood" is wrong. Kaiser Health News (www.kaiserhealthnews.org) is a nonprofit news service covering health policy.
We are an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health-care-policy research organization. We cover news about health reform, the health care delivery system, health costs and other aspects of health policy. We syndicate our material to major news organizations around the country. Ms. Appleby is a distinguished reporter who has a long track record of covering these topics, most recently for USA Today.
Please correct your column.
Peggy Girshman
Executive Editor, Online
Kaiser Health News
Pete2| 11.16.09 @ 7:58AM
Read both articles and failed to see any mention made your publication part of planned parenthood. The only reference I saw which showed anything at all was a remark about being pro-choice, presumably about the article author. I doubt if that remark ( author being pro-choice) is wrong. Where did you get that impression?
Quartermaster| 11.13.09 @ 6:24PM
Many years ago Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat." The line was said to generate a good many groans, even way back when. How much more true it is today.
champions resources | 11.14.09 @ 3:15AM
Men are allowed to take human life for purposes of legal execution, war or self defense.
Kevin Riley O'Keeffe | 11.16.09 @ 7:58PM
"A woman's life is never 'endangered' by her unborn baby. Abortion is never morally justified."
That's gibberish. While I have little doubt that well over 99 percent of abortions are elective, it never-the-less remains true that some women do, rarely, have some sort of health problem that could lead to their death, if their pregnancy isn't terminated. In fairness, however, the purpose of an abortion is to kill a baby, ergo if a pregnancy is terminated with the goal of preventing the death of the mother (who's death would take her developing child with her), perhaps it shouldn't be termed "an abortion." For that matter, ordinary surgeons have no problem performing such a medically necessary procedure, where as virtually no surgeons are willing to perform ordinarily elective abortions.
SoCon| 11.17.09 @ 4:26PM
You're right Kevin, but the number of abortions that is 'morally justified' is so minuscule, it's nearly immeasurable and certainly pales in comparison to the horrendously huge number of unnecessary abortions performed annually.
Lieuer Euy| 1.17.10 @ 7:38AM
I have surfed the net more than three hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It's worth enough for me. Thanks.
Computer Blog Technology | Identify What Is My IP Address Region
poptropica | 4.8.10 @ 9:02PM
First, kids create a character. After selecting whether to play as a boy or a girl Poptropica , they are assigned a name. Each character's appearance is randomly generated to start with; kids have the option to change almost all of their avatar's physical attributes, such as facial features and clothing. This character can be saved, via a password system, for use in future game-play sessions.
Then, kids enter Poptropica , a virtual world dotted with individual islands. Each island has its own theme, and its own adventure for players to complete. For example, "Time-Tangled Island" is a time-traveling adventure in which players must return objects and characters to their historically accurate periods, while "Spy Island" is a comical thriller with lots of futuristic gadgets. Each has a distinct storyline that is not related to those of the other islands.
Besides the single-player adventure, each island features common rooms, in which poptropica players can play standalone games against other people. These are primarily short, simple, reflex-based games, such as a skydiving competition in which the first person to touch the ground safely wins, or a basketball shooting competition in which the hoop is rising and falling. Players are given a star ranking based on their win-loss record.