What hasn’t been as clear has been the dividing line on public funding of abortion. There has been some well-known “social issues” fatigue on the part of Republicans, as long with a longstanding unwillingness by moderate Democrats to break with the party line and support even moderate pro-life positions. The belief was that most Democratic leaders hold to a “abortion is a medical procedure like any other, and thus all insurance plans should be compelled to cover it” approach. That the Stupak ammendment passed, and with so many Democrats passing it, indicates two encouraging things:

1. That there are far more Democrats than originally thought are beginning to acknowledge the growing majority of American who disapprove of abortion and will fight mightily to ensure our taxes don’t fund it.

2. Most importantly – it builds another (hopefully, prayerfully) impenetrable wall for the Senate to confront. In additon to the public option/no public option dogmatists, you’ve got a large portion of Democrats who’ll refuse to sign any bill that restricts abortion coverage a la the Stupak ammendment, and almost universal refusal to sign a bill on the part of the Republicans that strikes the Stupak ammendment down.

I can see how some would have conscience issues with not signing the ammendment because of potential incrementalism through the rape or incest clause, but that’s only with the presmuption that this is the exact bill to be debated by the Senate, which it most certainly won’t be. Everyone is well aware that the Unholy Trinity of Obama, Pelosi and Reid will fight with everything they have to get that ammendment overturned, along with the public option. But with Congress sending such a clear signal now about the people’s perspective, that gets much harder. (If they have any interest in listening to the people… one can pray, yes?)

IOW, it may have helped Nancy Pelosi win the intermediate battle, but in her hubris in thinking that the Senate will just roll over and repeal it, it may cause her to lose the war.

Respectfully, it’s too bad Reynolds doesn’t recognize this. He’s probably not familiar with the political statergy that goes on. I’m more befuddled by the National Right to Life. Given that they are a lobbying group, I’m befuddled that they’re ignorant of the politics. It will be interesting to see how the Republicans vote on this amendment.

I just called my representative’s office and the assistant I spoke to the assistant to convey my understanding of this ploy and they understand that this is probably a ploy to get the blue dogs to vote for the final bill.

My worldview can’t fit “this baby, we want to protect; but this baby from incest… just go ahead and kill it.”

But I also want to slow or stop both abortion, and spending tax payer money on abortion.

Does anyone else feel weird about this? How do you navigate it?

Citation for the incest/rape/life-of-mother exclusion: http://www.nrlc.org/press_releases_new/Release110709.html

I think that pro-life members should support the bill but still oppose this health care reform bill.