Matthew at Creative Minority Report with some fine analysis.
I’ve always wondered what was more important to secularist liberals, abortion or socialism. Sure, the two seem to be linked but when it comes down to it, which one, I wondered, was the principal which liberals would cling to no matter what.
And this week gave me my answer. The Senate Democrats needed 60 votes to pass healthcare but Senators Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman stood in the way for different reasons, presenting the White House and Senate leadership with a choice. Lieberman swore he wouldn’t vote for a public option while Nelson said he couldn’t vote for public funding of abortion.
And this week, Harry Reid did what seemed unthinkable just a month ago. He told Lieberman that they would take out the public option out of the healthcare bill. It’s telling that the Democrats in the White House and the Senate surrendered the public option before they were willing to take abortion out.
Let’s remember, the whole point of this healthcare bill and the main focus of Barack Obama’s first year in the Presidency was the public option. And they just gave it away so that they wouldn’t have to take out federal funding of abortion.
So in short, while liberals say that they believe that everyone is entitled to healthcare even at taxpayer expense what they really mean is that everyone is entitled to an abortion at taxpayer expense. They have proven with their actions that abortion is the bedrock principal of the Democratic Party. [reference]
So true. Instead of leaving it out of the health care bill and then through the normal incrementalism to add it in later they decided to compromise on pretty much everything but abortion. The Senate bill even got worse over time. The Democratic Party being a wholly owned subsidiary of the abortion industry might be a polemic statement, but a rather true one. Before they could get Federal funding of abortion they went this route.
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) — The Senate approved an omnibus spending bill on Sunday that would lift the 13-year-long ban on directly paying for abortions in the nation’s capital. The legislation, which President Barack Obama is expected to sign, also contains funding for Planned Parenthood and the UNFPA.
The Senate passed the bill, which funds several federal government departments, by a 57-35 vote, with Democrats backing the measure and most Republicans opposing it.
Passage of the measure today was no surprise given that Democrats won a filibuster battle on a narrow 60-34 vote that saw Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Richard Shelby of Alabama side with Democrats to move ahead to a vote on the bill.
Those same three Republicans voted for the bill and three Democrats, pro-abortion Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, all voted against it for other reasons.
Shelby voted for the bill even though he signed a letter along with 35 other Republicans saying they would filibuster it because of the abortion funding. Collins and Cochran did not sign the letter.
Democrats held open the vote to allow ailing pro-abortion Sen. Robert Byrd to come to the Senate to vote and for pro-abortion Jewish Sen. Joseph Lieberman to walk from synagogue to support it.
Several pro-life organizations called on members of the Senate to oppose the bill because it overturned the Dornan Amendment that has prohibited taxpayer funding of abortions in the District of Columbia.
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council called the bill “a Christmas gift to Planned Parenthood” and “supporters of coercive abortion.”
“This appropriations bill guts a longstanding prohibition on using public funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia,” Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life complained in a statement to LifeNews.com.
“The bill also provides millions of dollars for international ‘family planning’ that could be directed to organizations that pay for and promote abortions. A majority of Americans do not support the use of their tax dollars to pay for abortions,” she said.
The bill also appropriates $648.5 million for international family planning funding, an increase of $103 million from Fiscal Year 2009, without the constraints of the Mexico City Policy to prevent these dollars from being provided to organizations that promote and perform abortions.
The bill also increases funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which has an admittedly pro-abortion agenda and has been criticized for working hand-in-hand with Chinese population control officials, to $55 million, a $5 million increase from FY09. [reference]
That subsidy of abortion in Washington D.C was likely to happen has been know for some months. While the Bishops have been generally quite excellent in opposing Federal funding of abortion, I haven’t heard any reference to funding of abortion in Washington D.C. by them. Bishop Wuerl has been outspoken on the D.C. Council’s attempt to not allow religious exemptions in regard to same-sex marriage. As the excellent catechist that he is I wish that he would speak up about this travesty. Unfortunately it will be our nations capitol which will be the first with taxpayer funding of abortion.
One thing we will not hear is the race card dropped on the fact that the populations of an area with a majority black population will also be the first area with federal funding of abortion.
Isn’t it strange that throughout the Obama campaign–we kept hearing “it’s not all about abortion–but the economy?”
“Wuerl has been outspoken… As the excellent catechist that he is I wish that he would speak up about this travesty”.
Just remember that Wuerl refused responsibility, on the GREATEST SCANDAL of this millenium world-wide in TV: USA lawmakers-pro-abortion performing horrendous SACRILEGE, receiving the Eucharist, in prominent places, during the newly crucified Vicar of Christ Mass in DC 2008.
Put my comment back up, Jeffy. It’s not obscene, personal or vitriolic. Your readers deserve to read it. They want to read it. They are adults. It’s certainly not going to change their minds about anything. We are having a healthy public debate here.
What’s wrong with you?
Obama’s Christmas List:
Please let me have more DEAD AMERICANS.
Everything they do is geared towards increasing the number of deaths of American citizens … particularly Black ones.
Reddog? Your comments NOT obscene, vitriolic, or personal? Who is logging in under your name then? Although, I can give what I am sure is the gist of it….abortion good blah blah blah….Church is evil and bad and needs to keep its nose out blah blah blah…all priests are gay predators blah blah blah. There, I have given the basic summation of just about every post you have ever written in this place. Your schtick is getting tiresome.
To answer your question about why I hang around here so much, I guess it’s because you think you’re funny. I find that more offensive than if you were just some run of the mill, knuckle dragging cretin.
So I stay, to laugh at you but not because I think you’re funny Jeff.
I’m afraid that no one wants to talk to you because you are a terrible bore. Perhaps it’s the joylessness or the constant repetition of the same two or three canards in response to every post on this website, or some combination thereof.
Should someone, however, wish to discuss your views at length (something which your posts on this website would indicate you are incapable), I’m sure they would be happy to engage in your “honest public debate” on your blog or via email or telephone.
As it stands, however, the readers of this site seem to be better able to predict your statements than you are. May I suggest muttering to yourself in a corner.
You would like those at whom you pretend to sneer and hope to aggravate to think that you find them funny. But you just slipped and gave away the bacon. You don’t find them funny; you find them offensive.
You are offended because they seem to be fundamentally happy (even in their delusions and disappointments) and you are not. You are offended because they are laughing in joy and you can only sneer in Schadenfreude or pretend to sneer as a posture. Most of them seem to have the character to pity you.
But, alas, I find it funny.