By David N. Bass on 11.13.09 @ 6:07AM
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.
topics:
Abortion, Blue Dogs, Stupak Amendment
