Dealing with betrayal

Steven Ertelt, editor of LifeNews.com, has written an article on his site which appears to argue that in light of Sunday's vote on health care, pro-life Democrats can't be trusted to come through on the pro-life debate.

The fact that Bart Stupak and other Democrats flaked out at the very last minute is disturbing. And the fact that Democrats for Life is virtually the only pro-life organization right now that is praising the passage of the recent health care bill is at least somewhat disturbing.

It's easy to feel betrayed by pro-life Democrats. The article describes this feeling very well:

Chris Smith, the long-time leader of pro-life lawmakers in the House, told WSJ that Democrats face enormous pressure to yield because the party is so beholden to pro-abortion interests.

"The peer pressure to be part of the team can be overwhelming," he said. "But sometimes it's absolutely necessary, regardless of the cost, to bend into the wind, unmovable, committed to what your heart, mind and conscience know to be right."

"For so long, Bart did that. Then he was like a runner who stopped a hundred feet before the finish line. It's a sad day for the unborn, a sad day for their mothers, and a serious setback for the culture of life," he said.

So the question is, can pro-lifers trust Democrats at all?

Ertelt and others appear to be saying "no" in light of a perceived betrayal on the part of Stupak and other Democrats. But I would argue that this is a dangerous way to deal with betrayal. If pro-lifers let high emotions get to them at this juncture, they will be making huge long-term sacrifices that they cannot afford to make.

One interesting question is how the abortion issue got so partisan at all. This issue was not so partisan in the beginning. I think we have a bit of a chicken and egg problem here.

As this Gallup poll shows, the two parties have become more polarized on abortion over the past few decades. I have to wonder why this is. Did pro-lifers join the Republican party because the party supported their views? Did pro-choicers join the Democratic party because the party supported their views? Or did people within their parties change their views?

Clearly some have changed their views over the years, probably due to political pressure from within their party, as Ertelt's article demonstrates:

Former president Bill Clinton, former vice-president Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, current number two Senate Democrat Dick Durbin, presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich -- the list goes on and on of Democrats who, at one time, articulated the pro-life position only to compromise down the road.

And as another example, Ronald Reagan went from signing a liberal abortion law as governor of California to becoming a champion of the pro-life movement.

All this shifting around has caused a bit of a feedback loop. As more pro-lifers flock to the Republican party, the Republican party responds to its constituents by becoming more pro-life (but perhaps only on paper!) which in turn attracts more pro-lifers. The same idea holds for Democrats and pro-choicers.

But we cannot let this cycle continue indefinitely. That would be sacrificing the long-term victory for perhaps a few pathetic short-term political gains. Are we so short-sighted? Can we not see past these political skirmishes we fight, which have very little if anything to do with changing America into a culture of life?

In the long run, we should want nothing less than for abortion to be unthinkable, just as slavery is today. How do you propose that will ever happen if we demonize Democrats for their beliefs on how to make health care accessible?

Whatever your views on abortion, whether or not this health care bill will actually fund abortions is apparently not very clear, with intelligent people on all sides of the issue saying very different things. This is not a fair line to draw on the sand on the abortion issue, although I admit it ties knots in my stomach to think that there's even the possibility of taxes funding abortions.

If Democrats for Life are praising this health care bill, it is probably not a matter of sheer party loyalty; rather, it is probably a matter of commitment to a certain view of how economics (of health care in particular) should work. I happen to disagree with that view of economics, but not on strictly moral grounds (although I might be able to make some moral arguments against it).

Bart Stupak, as I blogged earlier, admitted his feeling of internal conflict over this whole matter. He wanted this health care bill to pass, with abortion being the only thing holding him back. I imagine that those who are unwilling to sympathize with him at this point are simply those who (like me, admittedly) were never big fans of this health care plan to begin with.

The principle of charity demands that we accept these explanations for what happened on Sunday, rather than the explanation that pro-life Democrats are just "spineless Obama-drones," as I blogged the other day out of frustration. I'm willing to admit that my attitude was wrong, but apparently pro-life leaders out there are willing to turn that attitude into a coordinated political movement. This will not work.

The pro-life movement has long been known for its religious influences. Now, at this juncture, we need to take those religious influences seriously, and remember that faith in God requires a desire for reconciliation. If we let our differences turn into political hatred, we will be destroyed from within.

It can be hard to overcome these strong feelings caused by this past weekend, but we must. Otherwise, we risk throwing away the long term for the sake of the short term. We risk throwing away the future of the unborn for the sake of our own self-righteousness.

I believe we pro-lifers risk also deluding ourselves into thinking we have more political sway than we really do. Polls that I've seen have all shown that abortion is pretty low on the list of voting priorities for both Republicans and Democrats. If that's the case, then what are we doing throwing our lot with one party or another?

Polls show at least half of Americans consider themselves pro-life. That would appear to be more than enough to make an enormous influence on abortion law. But apparently it isn't, and I suspect the reason is that the abortion issue isn't a high enough priority for those who already consider themselves pro-life. And how do we expect to change that if we're busy demonizing people like Bart Stupak and Democrats for Life?

Pro-life leaders need to examine themselves carefully before they sell out our future for the sake of their pride. As I've said time and time again, the pro-life movement is not a conservative movement. Nor is it a religious one. It is a human rights movement with a message that is perfectly consistent with any number of political, social, and economic systems.

It's time to put aside our feelings of betrayal and work as quickly as possible toward reconciliation. As long as there are both Republicans and Democrats in this country, we will need support from both of them. Unless you imagine that freedom lies in a one-party system!

Well, never mind

Never mind about Stupak. Never mind about integrity. All we have in Congress is a bunch of spineless Obama-drones. And then some Republicans, I guess.

Good job, Pelosi. Today is your day.

God Bless Bart Stupak

The more I've been following this health care debate, the more I've gotten confused, discouraged, and at times angry. Being invested in the pro-life issue, I was of course primarily concerned with abortion funding. I've long known that Obama is 100% committed to the pro-abortion cause, so I knew right from the introduction of a health care reform bill that abortion funding would be something to watch.

I was encouraged back when Congressman Bart Stupak originally introduced his amendment to ban abortion funding in health care, and 64 Democrats joined with the Republicans to vote in favor of the amendment. If this passes, I thought, at least it'll be something I can live with (although some pro-lifers were concerned even by that amendment).

Then the Senate bill came out, and apparently it did not live up to the language of the Stupak amendment. Trying to figure out exactly what it does say, and trying to figure out what's really going on, has been a sobering experience.

Every pro-life e-mail list has been frantically telling its members to contact their representatives in Congress to try to get opposition to this bill until it's changed to exclude abortion funding. But the sad realization I've come to is that all this energy devoted to this one bill should have been channeled a long, long time ago.

Part of what made me realize this is the way some people have had the gall to argue that we shouldn't oppose this bill now, because the government already funds abortions, anyway. I guess trying to do something about it now is considered infringing on women's personal liberties. Never mind my personal liberty in keeping my money from supporting abortion.

The more I've learned, the more I've come to realize just how much abortion is ingrained in our culture and in our economy. Decisions made by federal courts a long time ago have firmly established abortion is something politically unopposable, except in pitifully small ways. Honestly, if pro-lifers gain any victory on this health care bill, it too will be pitifully small.

This is why I simply can't vote for anyone who isn't pro-life. Although it seems rather futile in the short run, the fact is absolutely nothing of any long-term consequence can ever be done politically on this issue unless politicians have a price to pay for being pro-choice.

A big part of me would love to say I still respect pro-lifers who voted for Obama, based on many other important issues of conscience. But in many ways, I just can't. I have a really hard time respecting people who claim to believe abortion is wrong but won't do anything about it politically. The currency of politics is votes; give people your vote, and you give them incentive to stick to their current beliefs. Being pro-abortion is one of the worst beliefs I can think to endorse.

Change can only happen on this issue if people stick to their principles. Of course, it's true that many people will simply have to be convinced to change their minds. But much of the time, it's simply a matter of pro-lifers not having any backbone, being willing to sell out when the debate gets tough.

That's why Bart Stupak is just the man. This Democrat from Michigan has become the focal point for more political ire than I can imagine. But he isn't backing down.

Stupak is a long-time supporter of health care reform. In his own words, "I believe everyone should have healthcare. In all my correspondence — I’ve been saying for years — it’s a right, not a privilege."

But there's a price that Stupak isn't willing to pay: he isn't willing to see federal subsidies supporting abortion. And oh, the criticism he's taken from the Left; just Google his name and search for a few seconds.

For instance, Michael Moore has decided to chime in with a letter, brilliantly titled, "My Congressman, Bart Stupak, Has Neither a Uterus Nor a Brain." Besides Moore's characteristically inflated rhetoric and poor reasoning, the letter also contains unproven accusations against Stupak all for the sake of demonizing the guy, just because of his principled stance on this difficult issue.

Another article accuses Stupak of being willing to "kill the living to save the unborn." It also takes a stab at Stupak's conservative constituency:

Coming from a state that has been so touched by this recession, you'd think that voting against health care reform would be political suicide, but apparently, if Rep. Stupak is reading his constituents correctly, they are people who are willing for other people to die from lack of health care insurance, more than they are able to see beyond the perceived threat within their own "conspiracy theory" minds that health care reform is nothing more than a liberal, socialist plot to provide free, federally funded abortions. Next they'll be saying that President Obama is not a U.S. citizen and has no right to be president. Yeah right.

No one thinks any of this. But people bent on passing this health care bill without regard for its potential side effects will go to great lengths to make Stupak and his supporters out to be idiots.

And I just wonder, why? Why don't the Democrats just throw Stupak a bone, here? In the end, maybe it won't matter; maybe the Democrats will be able to ram it through without his support. But is it really so much to ask that federally subsidized health insurance plans don't cover abortions? I guess it is for most Democrats in Congress.

The Republicans we can count on to oppose anything that the Democrats try to pass in terms of health care reform. Part of that is a matter of principle, and part of it is just partisan politics; we all know that. What's amazing about Stupak is that he's withstanding enormous pressure from his own party, the party in power, to give in.

You just don't see that kind of courage every day. The news media and the bloggers can say whatever they want about his motives. But I say, God bless him. It's nice to see politics based on principle once in a while.