Democrats, Health Care & Abortion: Yahoo!

The title of a recently released Yahoo! article is "Dems may lose Catholics' (votes) over abortion (issue)". So as much as we've been saying that people's health shouldn't be politicized, people are still politicizing it.

"BY TEEING UP A PUBLIC BATTLE over abortion in the health care bill now before the Senate, congressional Democrats COULD BE (there's that "may be" trigger phrase again) risking more than just the fate of the legislation. HANGING IN THE BALANCE are millions (not a small number) of Catholic swing voters who moved decisively to the Democrats in 2008 and could move away just as quickly". This is an invitation to play politics.

According to John Green, a religion and politics expert at the Bliss Institute at the University of Akron, "There COULD BE political repercussions in the election. It COULD BE harder for the Democrats to keep those Catholic voters they gained and they MAY put some of their members at risk". This statement is filled with conditional words and phrases: "could be", "could be" and "may". However, here's the key point: "To alienate them on abortion COULD BE TO ALIENATE THEM ON HEALTHCARE REFORM" and that would be nothing short of A DISASTER. With almost no GOP support, we need as much support from other interest groups as possible.

"Already, it's become an issue (yes, a political issue) in the primary to choose a Democratic candidate for the Massachusetts Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy". OK, here's another political issue. This means that Paul Kirk, hand-picked by Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, WILL NOT be seeking re-election in 2010 for a full term.

Now, will this be beneficial or detrimental in the fight for universal health care? "In a local television interview, one of the candidates, State Attorney General Martha Coakley said that IF she had been in the Senate, she would have KILLED the health care reform bill rather than support the Stupak amendment. One of her opponents, Rep. Michael Capuano, defended his House vote for the bill, saying that he wanted to keep the reform effort moving. BUT he vowed to vote against a final bill IF it still contains the abortion funding amendment". "if" and "but" have made too many appearances lately. And this is to replace the late Ted Kennedy? He was THE VOICE for health care for many years and if he could hear this from his grave at Arlington National Cemetary, he would surely be turning over in his grave right now.

"ANGER over the church's lobbying for the amendment prompted Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), an ABORTION RIGHTS SUPPORTER, to call for an Internal Revenue Service investigation into the church's tax claims. It's a hollow feeling. No law prohibits religious organizations from lobbying Congress, PROVIDED (that) THE BULK of their expenditures is spent on other programs". "the bulk" SHOULD BE >50%. Does this meet the criteria? Also note the word "anger". Everyone seems to be digging in their heels, knowing this is a long way from being a done deal.

"BUT (trigger word again) the Woolsey retaliatory attack, published in POLITICO, generated fresh headlines about the dispute and COULD DRIVE A DEEPER WEDGE between the party and A KEY ELECTORAL CONSTITUENCY". Politics is back...with a bang ("could drive a deeper wedge").

According to Tad Devine, a Democratic consultant, "Voters who consider themselves Catholic are able to see the church teachings THAT CAN BE pro-Democratic Party OR pro-Republican Party". Democrats have clearly lost their advantage here.

"BUT (there's that word again) smoothing over the conflict ISN'T LIKELY to become an option. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is just now surveying members to MEASURE PASSIONS on the issue, a spokesman said". "isn't likely" carries obvious negative connotations and as far as the phrase "to measure passions" is concerned,   many senators aren't very 'passionate' at all and this is more bad news. Another disturbing indicator is that Reid himself doesn't seem to be pushing very hard for the health care reform proposal and the public option which he strongly supported initially only to go against it later.

"Sen. Ben Nelson, AN ABORTION RIGHTS OPPONENT, has said language banning taxpayer-backed abortion is essential to winning his support".

"Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), WHO ALSO OPPOSES ABORTION RIGHTS, said legislation should contain "strong language" to prohibit federal funds from being used to pay for abortion coverage".

Finally, according to Douglas Johnson, chief lobbyist for the National Right to Life Committee, obviously a pro-life and anti-abortion group, "When the Senate takes up the issue (we have no indication as to when this will happen yet; of course, we hope that it's fairly soon), it will be in the light of day, WITH THE NATION'S EYES UPON THEM. We've read in the papers that Harry Reid will put a public option in his (i.e. the Senate) bill. I SUSPECT IT WILL HAVE PHONY LANGUAGE that will allow for using public funds for abortions".    

So, wanna get rid of politics? THAT'S FLAT OUT IMPOSSIBLE. Now, we're gonna be talking about the Senate's interpretations of abortion in addition to THE PUBLIC OPTION.