Life Links 11/10/09

In the Wall Street Journal, William McGurn has a piece on Bart Stupak appropriately entitled, "The man who made Pelosi cry uncle." It sounds like the prolife Democrats aren't going to accept the Stupak amendment being stripped from health care reform.

As it is, Democrats now have to make some decisions that may anger their Planned Parenthood wing. The fight itself will be interesting, judging from a claim by Diana DeGette (D., Col.) in yesterday's Washington Post that 40 Democrats will vote against a final bill unless the Stupak amendment is stripped out. Of course, if it is stripped out, that will put even more pressure on those 64 Democrats who voted for the amendment.

"We won because [the Democrats] need us," says Mr. Stupak. "If they are going to summarily dismiss us by taking the pen to that language, there will be hell to pay. I don't say it as a threat, but if they double-cross us, there will be 40 people who won't vote with them the next time they need us—and that could be the final version of this bill."

Wouldn't be amazing if pro-choice desire for federal subsidized abortion sunk health care reform?


Surprise. Surprise. The New York Times opposes the Stupak amendment. I do like this paragraph though:

The highly restrictive language was easily approved by a 240-to-194 vote and incorporated into the overall bill, which squeaked through by a tally of 220 to 215. It was depressing evidence of the power of anti-abortion forces to override a reasonable compromise.

The Times also praises pro-choice Democrats for "sensibly cho(osing) to keep the reform process moving ahead." Except that more than 40 of them have already promised to prevent the final passage if the Stupak amendment isn't removed. Why are prolife representatives somehow less than sensible because they had they had the majority of votes?


Natalie Fohl, president of the prolife students club at McGill University, has an editorial detailing attempts to revoke her club's status.