Steven Waldman

Steven Waldman

Is Blocking National Health Care a New “Pro-Family” Issue?

A recent missive from the Family Research Council bore the headline, “The Gloves Come Off.” What major moral values issue were they referring to, I wondered. Was the Obama administration planning an aggressive effort to promote abortion or gay marriage?
Actually, the Family Research Council issued a call to arms over Obama’s plan to push expanded health care early in the administration. “Among other things, Obama’s plan would increase Medicaid spending, expand anti-parental features of the State Children’s health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and overhaul medical records technology,” FRC warned.
A couple of weeks ago, Jill Stanek, an influential pro-life activist, wrote an article listing the pro-choice activists working for Obama. About Tom Daschle, the health care czar, she wrote:. “Daschle is a rabid pro-abort who also detests abstinence education and supports nationalized health care, i.e. taxpayer-funded abortions.”
Stay tuned to see if opposition to national health care becomes a new Pro-Family issue.
UPDATE: Jill Stanek elaborates in an email:


“As a pro-lifer I oppose nationalized health care because of the liberal
insistence on abortion coverage. Hillary wanted it, Obama wants it, and
Daschle wants it, to name three.
Further and as a related aside, pro-lifers are part of a group pushing for
the free market offering of privatized interstate health insurance of one’s
choice – not tied to one’s employer if one desires, and not regulated so one
can only purchase from a company within one’s own state.
This would allow pro-lifers to choose health insurance companies that do not
cover abortion and/or birth control. That is the real “pro-choice” position
on health insurance coverage. Of course, the other side opposes this. ”

Comments read comments(10)
post a comment
Dancing Cat

posted December 17, 2008 at 10:20 am

I certainly do understand the desire not to have taxpayer dollars pay for abortions but do the “Pro-Life” folks have any concern about the thousands of babies who die in the first few years of life due to lack of medical care or the mother not having received adequate prenatal care? Is this not at least an equal tragedy to abortion? And how does not covering contraception make sense when contraception prevents abortions? Boggles the mind. I can imagine that not having to worry about healthcare costs might make a woman who is undecided feel more able to have her baby when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.
I equally do not understand why the pro-choice dems are not willing to compromise on the point of including abortion in order to get the greater good of providing nationalized healthcare.

report abuse

Steven Ertelt

posted December 17, 2008 at 11:41 am

Blocking health care? C’mon Steven….
No one in the pro-life community wants to block health care. What we DO want to block is a national health care plan that requires taxpayers to fund abortions. We want to block health care plans that force medical professionals or centers to do abortions. We want to block a health plan mandating that insurance companies pay for abortions.
Stopping abortion, forced abortions, and taxpayer funding is nothing new and poll after poll for years has shown most Americans don’t want those kinds of things — despite your warped and twisted description to the contrary.
If anyone is blocking health care, it’s Barack Obama and his pro-abortion friends who voted against an amendment to expand SCHIP to include pregnant moms and their unborn children. Heaven forbid we provide health care to children BEFORE birth.

report abuse

Your Name

posted December 17, 2008 at 2:18 pm

What an upside-down moral universe conservative Christians live in. It’s OK to stop millions of people from getting access to health care if it stops taxpayer funding of some abortions? Anybody who makes such a calculation should be treated as a moral leper.
It’s not even that any abortions will be stopped, just the infintesimal drain on the taxpayer purse. Of course, almost everybody who makes such an argument is being dishonest anyway, because its clear that the driving factor in the argument is the failed right-wing economic theory.
Even there it’s nonsensical theory because if you truly believe in a free market, then abortion is a service that people will purchase and nobody has any business legislating it. When Jill Stanek says “free market” she means it in a sense in which “free = free as theocrats of my choosing dictate.”
To top it off, Stanek calls Daschle “rabid,” as if he is a venemous animal. There is just no shame, no low to which such people will go to force their evil on the rest of the people. Thank God that grown-ups are in charge of the country once again.

report abuse


posted December 17, 2008 at 2:31 pm

If right-to-lifers can withhold tax money from the health care of their fellow citizens, why can’t pacifists withhold their tax money from the war in Iraq? Or from courts which implement the death penalty?

report abuse

Scott R.

posted December 17, 2008 at 4:59 pm

The only people these people give a damn about are unborn babies – and themselves. Once you’re born, watch out, because a Christian conservative won’t lift a finger for you.
These people are a threat to every man, woman and child in this country – including themselves.
Christian? In their dreams.

report abuse


posted December 17, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Excellent questions.
My personal opinion is because the “family research council” is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual hive of bigots and ultra-conservatives and far-right-wing religious fruitcakes whose only desire is to inject Civil, Secular Law with their personal beliefs. Whatever those happen to be at the moment, generally whatever will grab them a headline.
They care about no family and no child. Not really.
They push to amend state and federal law to exclude any rights for unmarried opposite-gender partners & gay couples, and would happily condemn millions of children to growing up in loveless orphanage institutions (ie, without any parents) rather than allow a single/unmarried person or same-sex couple to adopt. They spend millions to fight same-sex marriage, calling it ‘the greatest danger to the family’, yet ignore the staggering divorce rate among heterosexuals. The list of their inconsistencies and lies and hypocrisy is a mile long.
That’s just the tip of their fascist iceberg. This is one instance where I hope global warming sets in soon enough to melt it before their idiocy sinks any more ships.

report abuse


posted December 17, 2008 at 5:38 pm

Talk about zealots. These are people who view everything through the lens of abortion and gays. They’d oppose providing health care for children and for the poor because of abortion. Unbelievable.

report abuse

Your Name

posted December 17, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Oh yes! Finally, an administration that will round up pregnant women and force them to undergo abortions. I seem to recall that the MSM (make that the LIBERAL MSM) conspired to keep that part of the platform secret.
Do these folks really think they are at the center of the universe and it’s all about them — no, not just about them but against them?
How about the 44 million ununsured and the yet-uncounted families (and not just gay marriage families)losing insurance as they lose their jobs, their homes and their life savings? Don’t they count in “pro-family” policy?
Look, if some adults don’t want to be a recipient of a national health care, then they can choose not to avail themselves of the service. And while they are at it, I’ll take court-worthy sworn statements that neither they nor any member of their family several generations hence will ever participate in any future medical protocol that was developed with stem cell research.

report abuse


posted December 17, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Jill Stanek was one os many people that spread false information about Obama’s stance on the “born alive” issue. Her statements were debunked by factcheck, politifact, and other factual sources, such as the Republican Illinois Senator that introduced the bill.
Another example of sinning in attempts to stop abortion.

report abuse

Your Name

posted February 20, 2009 at 9:44 am

Let me submit this:
You are a taxpayer. You are morally opposed to prostitution. But your government, deeming that sex is a health need (and thus a “right” according to the “real compassionates”) for men, says that your tax money is going to be used to fund prostitution services for single, ugly men. How would you feel? Would you protest? Would you want your money spent on such services that pierced your very spiritual core?
Many of you attempt to hold Christians hostage by saying they are lacking compassion and care for others by not supporting nationalized health care. Many Christians and conservatives recognize that charity is NOT best dispensed by the government in the form of forced taxpaying. And furthermore, Christians and conservative ideals are better vehicles for empowering individuals than liberal and socialistic ideals that end up, historically, devaluing the human individual.
There are many other arguments to be made about nationalized healthcare. I believe that Christians and conservatives WANT to help those in need, but they do not believe in imposing socialism on everyone in order to achieve the goal.

report abuse

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to and may be used by in accordance with the agreements.

Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!
Thank you for visiting this page. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Top Religious News Most Recent Inspiration Post Happy Reading! ...

posted 6:00:22pm Apr. 20, 2012 | read full post »

Good Bye
Today is my last day at Beliefnet (which I co-founded in 1999). The swirling emotions: sadness, relief, love, humility, pride, anxiety. But mostly deep, deep gratitude. How many people get to come up with an idea and have rich people invest ...

posted 8:37:24am Nov. 20, 2009 | read full post »

"Steven Waldman Named To Lead Commission Effort on Future of Media In a Changing Technological Landscape" (FCC Press Release)
STEVEN WALDMAN NAMED TO LEAD COMMISSION EFFORT ON FUTURE OF MEDIA IN A CHANGING TECHNOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced today the appointment of Steven Waldman, a highly respected internet entrepreneur and journalist, ...

posted 11:46:42am Oct. 29, 2009 | read full post »

My Big News
Dear Readers, This is the most difficult (and surreal) post I've had to write. I'm leaving Beliefnet, the company I co-founded in 1999. In mid November, I'll be stepping down as President and Editor in Chief to lead a project on the future of ...

posted 1:10:11pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »

"Beliefnet Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief Steps Down to Lead FCC Future of the Media Initiative" (Beliefnet Press Release)
October 28, 2009 BELIEFNET CO-FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF STEPS DOWN TO LEAD FCC FUTURE OF THE MEDIA INITIATIVE New York, NY - October 28, 2009 - Beliefnet, the leading online community for inspiration and faith, announced today that Steven ...

posted 1:05:43pm Oct. 28, 2009 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.