Via Media

Via Media


Thanks again

posted by awelborn

Specter Supporters, and you know Who You Are:

The House and the Senate are again at odds over whether or not to offer comprehensive protection for hospitals, medical personnel and insurance companies that do not want to pay for or be involved in abortions. The House has approved a more expansive protection while a pro-abortion senator has inserted weakening language into the Senate version.

In the House version of the FY 2006 Labor-HHS appropriations bill, members included a provision that made the FY 2005 version protecting people in the medical industry. It prohibits agencies that receive federal dollars from discriminating against medical personnel or agencies that don’t want to be involved in abortions.

However, pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, put weaker language into the Senate version.

The Specter language would withhold federal dollars from discriminating agencies only if they require health care personnel to train in or perform abortions, but not if they are forced to refer patients to other facilities for abortions.

Specter included the changed wording in the Senate bill on behalf of NARAL and other abortion advocacy groups. The say it "clarifies" the Hyde-Weldon provision, but pro-life groups say it simply weakens the protections that provision offers.

A representative of the U.S. Conference of Catholic bishops say the Specter language would "effectively gut" the protections in the Hyde-Weldon language, which President Bush signed into law last year.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(46)
post a comment
Calculon

posted August 23, 2005 at 11:39 am


Come on, haven’t you guys learned by now that “pro-choice” is a one-way street?? that it only means favoring the choice of abortion, and that it does NOT mean, and in fact rejects the choice of opposing abortion or the choice of not getting involved in abortion, financially or otherwise, or the choice of sending your children to non-public schools, or the choice of not exposing your children to condoms on cucumbers, or the choice of putting bumper stickers on your car promoting “choice,” but suggesting that the choice be life.



report abuse
 

Jeff

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:10 pm


This Specter supporter did not support Specter because he was crazy about him or because he was a better candidate than his primary competitor. He supported Specter because he WANTS TO OVERTURN ROE VS. WADE.
In order to do that, we need to get our Supreme Court appointments through. To do that, we need a Republican Senate and we need “moderate” Republicans to support the President’s nominees as forcefully as they can.
Telling “moderate” “pro-choice” Republicans, “We don’t want you and we don’t need you. If you aren’t avidly pro-life, you get NOTHING from us,” sets us up for certain defeat. Telling them, “You get our support if you support the President’s judicial nominees,” gives us the power to keep a coalition going that can get us the judges we want and need.
I don’t see how ditching all the “moderate” Republican Senators and replacing them with Democrats would advance the cause at all. We can’t get the judges we want without pro-choice Republicans. We CAN’T. So we need to offer them this quid-pro-quo, which up to now they have been willing to live with.
I remember with gratitude Spectors nearly career destroying questioning of Anita Hill, which got us the best Supreme Court justice we have. That doesn’t mean I’d vote for him or that I think he’s a great guy. But we can’t even begin to fix abortion til we get rid of Roe. And we can’t do that without judges.
Will Roberts fill the bill or have we been “tricked again?” I think he’ll be fine; I live in Washington and know people who know him. They all have confidence in him. But…only time will tell. In any case, that was the deal on offer. Going down for “principle” in a ball of flame might have felt good, but it would have gotten us nowhere.
And now, it appears that Rick Santorum, a real, genuine conservative pro-lifer may well lose his election because he’s not been “pure” enough for pro-lifers to support him. Let’s snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, shall we?



report abuse
 

Kevin Miller

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:22 pm


This pro-life Republican:
-doesn’t think we should simply dump Santorum.
-also thinks, however, that Santorum (and some other Republicans) made an unwise choice in last year’s senatorial primary, since (a) it’s far from clear that the alternative to Specter would be a Democrat, and (b) it’s far from clear that Specter will be of much help regarding the Court. (It should be noted that while Specter helped immeasurably with the Thomas nomination, he was also involved in the original “Borking” – and that, furthermore, he did the former when up for reelection, whereas he did the latter shortly after a previous reelection – which has disturbing implications for what he’ll do now, since it’s shortly after a reelection.)



report abuse
 

Victor Morton

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:27 pm


The Specter language would withhold federal dollars from discriminating agencies only if they require health care personnel to train in or perform abortions, but not if they are forced to refer patients to other facilities for abortions.
I had to read this “nut graf” describing the Specter language four times before I understood it — too many negatives, unclear referants and it backs into the point.
Basically, Specter’s language would allow federal agencies to withhold money from health-care providers who do not refer people seeking abortions to places where they can get them.
That’s obviously intrusively Big-Brother-ish and a step in the state normalization of abortion. But does it really “gut” the conscience exemption? I guess it would, depending on the more refined moral points of what “cooperation” means and how they’d interact with what the legal requirement of “refer” might cover.
But I mean — does anybody with a lick of sense really need to be “referred” to a place that performs abortions? There’s an interesting book that I think is in every Catholic hospital that tells you everything you need to know about where to get an abortion (I even keep a copy of this book around the house myself). It’s called the Yellow Pages.



report abuse
 

Rick

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:36 pm


>
Is everyone aware that our GOP Congress deems even elective abortions a “qualified medical expense?”
That means that a patient can actually get a rebate from Uncle Sam, in the form of a tax refund, for having an abortion.
And, if you have one of the new Health Savings Account, you are free to spend pre-tax dollars on an abortion.
You can’t spend the funds on a health membership; you can’t spend them on a nose job; but you *can* spend them to abort your unborn child, with the approval of the IRS and the blessings of Congress.
I’m truly baffled as to why this isn’t a source of outrage.



report abuse
 

David R.

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:39 pm


“But I mean — does anybody with a lick of sense really need to be “referred” to a place that performs abortions?”
I guarantee that the ACLU, NARAL, or anyone else who has the resources to initiate damaging litigation against a Catholic hospital or doctor can find someone to say that they depend on such a referral.



report abuse
 

Maclin Horton

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:40 pm


does anybody with a lick of sense really need to be “referred” to a place that performs abortions?
I’ve always taken the insistence on referral to be an effort to compromise the conscience of the anti-abortion institution, not a matter of any real practical concern. Rather like the demand that the Pope “approve” condoms for AIDS prevention: as if someone engaged in sexual activity already clearly and totally forbidden by Catholic morality is going to forego using a condom because the Pope says so. Sure, and Catholic bank robbers generally say a prayer of thanksgiving over their loot, lest they be accused of impiety.



report abuse
 

Ian

posted August 23, 2005 at 1:32 pm


Amy,
I didn’t vote for the guy last fall (and didn’t vote for the Dem either)! Specter will never support a pro-life candidate unless his job’s on the line, and he dosn’t intend to run again on account of his age and bad health. Those who supported him elected a defacto Dem with no accountability. Rrgh



report abuse
 

Calculon

posted August 23, 2005 at 1:36 pm


Allowing RINOs in the tent is only going to end up wrecking everything.



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 23, 2005 at 2:19 pm


er, we are cognizant, are we not, that the championing of Specter over his pro-life opponent was spearheaded by none other than George Dubya Bush? He pushed for Specter. Santorum was simply following orders here. (Not that it excuses Santorum. But it does tend to bear strong witness to Professor Bainbridge’s complaints yesterday.) Bush has done the absolute bare minimum necessary to keep pro-lifers on the plantation. But there is plenty of reason to question how seriously he takes them.



report abuse
 

Jeff

posted August 23, 2005 at 2:50 pm


Specter has supported and will support all of Bush’s nominees. So say I. He’s supporting Roberts.
I don’t know where you guys get this stuff. In terms of what he’s actually done on nominees, he’s backed everyone after his “Borking.” What do you say to a guy that has kept up his end of the deal? Go to H____?



report abuse
 

Jaime

posted August 23, 2005 at 3:48 pm


jeff-
“Specter because he WANTS TO OVERTURN ROE VS. WADE”
No, he doesn’t.
The money isn’t there and he has always gone where the money is. Always.



report abuse
 

Marlene

posted August 23, 2005 at 4:04 pm


Maclin Horton
“I’ve always taken the insistence on referral to be an effort to compromise the conscience of the anti-abortion institution”
Bulls-eye. A doctor who was literally run out of town wrote a book about what happens when you refrain from a referral. He is a rheumatologist. His offense was to decline to sign on to an elective abortion, even though another rheumatologist did. They went after him and his practice was destroyed. Everyone else got the message. “I’ll Bet My Life On It” by Ronald G. Connolly, M.D.



report abuse
 

Chris-2-4

posted August 23, 2005 at 4:18 pm


Bush has done the absolute bare minimum necessary to keep pro-lifers on the plantation.
Turning this bus around is going to take some time. I wouldn’t say that I’m thrilled with Bush’s efforts, but I think “bare minimum” understates what he has done.



report abuse
 

Kevin Miller

posted August 23, 2005 at 4:19 pm


Mark:
Yes, I didn’t like Bush’s support for Specter any more than I liked Santorum’s. (I will say this, though – I still think Santorum is a real pro-life supporter – and likewise, I don’t think Bush’s move regarding that primary, bad as it was, means he isn’t a real pro-life supporter.)
Jeff:
I’d like for Roberts to get through the Senate before I draw my conclusions about Specter’s handling of the nomination. Especially since he’s said plenty of things – including just in the past few months – that seem obviously meant to undermine support for pro-life nominees.



report abuse
 

Tom

posted August 23, 2005 at 4:20 pm


Mark is right. President Bush (Karl Rove) wanted Specter as the candidate in the general election and Santorum was doing what was expected of him, be a team player (which is why politics often cannot be trusted). By the way Bork was on with Hannity yesterday and later on with Monica Crowley saying that while he thought Roberts would not do anything crazy like vote for the legalization of homosexual marriage, he also would not do anything with conviction and boldness and vote to overturn Roe v Wade. He basically felt that Roberts was a vanilla candidate, in other words, “safe.”



report abuse
 

Kevin Miller

posted August 23, 2005 at 4:24 pm


Mark:
Yes, I didn’t like Bush’s support for Specter any more than I liked Santorum’s. (I will say this, though – I still think Santorum is a real pro-life supporter – and likewise, I don’t think Bush’s move regarding that primary, bad as it was, means he isn’t a real pro-life supporter.)
Jeff:
I’d like for Roberts to get through the Senate before I draw my conclusions about Specter’s handling of the nomination. Especially since he’s said plenty of things – including just in the past few months – that seem obviously meant to undermine support for pro-life nominees.



report abuse
 

Tom

posted August 23, 2005 at 4:34 pm


Mark is right. President Bush (Karl Rove) wanted Specter as the candidate in the general election and Santorum was doing what was expected of him, be a team player (which is why politics often cannot be trusted). By the way Bork was on with Hannity yesterday and later on with Monica Crowley saying that while he thought Roberts would not do anything crazy like vote for the legalization of homosexual marriage, he also would not do anything with conviction and boldness and vote to overturn Roe v Wade. He basically felt that Roberts was a vanilla candidate, in other words, “safe.”



report abuse
 

David R.

posted August 23, 2005 at 4:52 pm


What is really sad is that this will be considered a “compromise”. Have we already lost? We want abortion completely outlawed. But all of a sudden, the battle line is whether opponents will be forced to participate in abortions or not at the risk of losing their jobs!?!
What a day where the person who has no qualms about snuffiing out a little life is protected by the law, while it refuses to protect the health worker who woud prefer not to be involved in murder from employer retaliation.
This is the same as the “moderate” position on stem cells. The “moderate” position there is not to allow some and outlaw some ESCR, it is to allow it without any legal restrictions, AND force the American public to pay for it with their tax dollars. This was Frist’s “moderate” proposal.



report abuse
 

Jeff

posted August 23, 2005 at 5:03 pm


Kevin:
Specter isn’t pro-life. That’s quite clear. But as a Republican, he is willing to support nominees who are “strict constructionists” and therefore will overturn Roe, though he supports it. That’s all that can be asked of a pro-choicer. And we need to work with them to get nominees past.
But he is also trying to appeal to his pro-choice constituency, to say, “No, I’m still committed to a woman’s right to choose,” etc., etc. Not very palatable, but understandable for someone in his position. He has to finesse the matter.
I don’t care what he does as long as he support Bush’s nominees. We have to begin by clearing the decks and getting rid of Roe and its progeny. Without that we can’t do anything as the David R.’s poignant post indicates.



report abuse
 

Jay Anderson

posted August 23, 2005 at 5:06 pm


“Bush has done the absolute bare minimum necessary to keep pro-lifers on the plantation. But there is plenty of reason to question how seriously he takes them.”
Yesterday, those of us who have been somewhat supportive of the President and his policies were told that we were blind, unquestioning, good little Germans who would stifle anyone who dared to question our “godlike hero” with shouts of “TREASON!”
I haven’t seen anything approaching such adulation of the President. Rather, we are much more likely to be treated to commentary such as I quoted above that fails to see anything good in what the President has done.
Whatever his shortcomings, I think it is a stretch to say that Bush does not have pro-life convictions. While it may not be saying much, he is certainly the most pro-life President since Roe v. Wade, even moreso than Reagan.
And to fail to recognize, for example, that Bush and the Republicans in Congress took a hit politically for doing the right thing vis-a-vis Terri Schiavo is to tell those who support us politically that no matter what they do, we will never give them any credit for it.
Now THAT is a sure recipe for successfully accomplishing our pro-life goals.



report abuse
 

Kevin Miller

posted August 23, 2005 at 5:59 pm


Jeff,
I don’t care what he does as long as he support Bush’s nominees.
Fair enough – as I said, I will wait till the Roberts confirmation is over to decide whether and how much and how effectively Specter supported him. And I do think his other pronouncements need to be taken into account precisely in this connection – since even if he’s just tossing rhetorical bones to his fellow pro-choicers, they still affect the atmosphere in which the Roberts process will be conducted.



report abuse
 

Andrea Harris

posted August 23, 2005 at 6:21 pm


Hey guys? I hate to inject a little ugly reality here, but if Bush had done what you wanted and totally focused on making abortion illegal, to the exclusion of all other presidential duties, and had packed his administration only with the staunchest, least-compromising anti-abortion officials he could find, if he had done all this…. Al Gore would have become president, and no Republican would ever have been elected again. I’d rather not contemplate what would have been done to Bush — something involving boiling tar and an upstairs window, I imagine.
Unfortunately, these are the Bad Facts: in this country the pro-abortion lobby is powerful enough to make it obvious that despite the polls where 95% (or whatever) of the people mark down “Ew, they are bad” on the abortion question, a majority of people still don’t want to overturn Roe vs. Wade. They don’t want anyone to have an abortion — they want all the abortions to “just stop” — but they are not willing to back legislation to make it illegal on any level — local, state, or federal. The memory of the bad old days (not all of them exaggerated either) of back-alley abortions and all the rest of what used to be is simply too powerful, and quite frankly screaming at politicians because they aren’t willing to destroy their entire careers for (as they see it) this one issue makes you look like babies throwing tantrums because you didn’t get a pony for Christmas.
What you need to do is go for the — if you will excuse the expression — “root cause” and aim at the culture of rootless, affectless, meaningless sex that permeates our culture like dry rot, but I agree that it’s much easier to scream at politicians.
By the way, for the record, I am not a “Specter supporter,” whatever the hell that is.



report abuse
 

BillyHW

posted August 23, 2005 at 7:02 pm


George W. Bush is the most pro-life president America has had for the better part of a century.
Mark Shea can’t understand that President Bush can’t just start calling his political opponents babykillers and buggerers because the media is controlled by the Evil One and that might lose him an election to said babykillers and buggerers. Getting banned from beliefnet is one thing, but losing an election is another thing entirely. His approach may not be as glorious as Mr. Shea’s, but the President is more concerned with success than the adulation of men.
Mark Shea should get out of his blogging pajamas before he begins to criticize this great man, who has done so much for the cause of justice, in America, and around the world.



report abuse
 

Boniface McInnes

posted August 23, 2005 at 7:28 pm


“George W. Bush is the most pro-life president America has had for the better part of a century.”
Please.
He hasn’t even begun to approach Reagan’s record, and Reagan’s record really boils down to a mere book, though a very good one, and ending direct federal funding of abortion. When Bush has done much of anything to equal Mexico City and “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation”, wake me.
Until then, shill on and let me sleep.



report abuse
 

BillyHW

posted August 23, 2005 at 8:11 pm


Booya.



report abuse
 

John Hetman

posted August 23, 2005 at 8:27 pm


BillyHW: Thanks.
Mark Shea: Comments?



report abuse
 

Jack Dwyer

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:29 pm


As an Aussie I’m a bit out of this one (we’ve enough troubles here). But what good can come from a guy with a name almost identical to a criminal enterprise featured in the JAMES BOND movies…???!!! It’s worse if one of his colleagues is a Smersh, Goldfinger, Blofeld or No… And if any of them are large fellows who like stroking vicious white felines, watch out…!!!



report abuse
 

Boniface McInnes

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:38 pm


So…
He’s re-instated Mexico City.
Again, wake me when the book is out.



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:19 pm


Billy:
I haven’t seen this particular rhetorical trick since Loraine Boettner’s famous “List of Roman Catholic Inventions”. It consists of cutting and pasting a massive wall of “facts” in substitution for argument. So, would you care to explain to me how Bush going jogging with a soldier or Jeff Jacoby’s views on What has Gone Right in Iraq or Strong Economic Growth in the First Quarter of 2004 demonstrates that Bush is the Greatest Pro-Life President in the History of All Time Space and Eternity?
Bush has made some efforts to get some pro-lifers on the bench (we’ll see if his SCOTUS pick is another Souter in due time). He’s phoned it in for Roe v. Wade anniversaries. He’s managed to pass a law forbidding sticking scissors in babies brains (thereby bringing American civilization up to Carthaginian standards). He’s talked about being pro-life and had other in his administration do the same. Don’t get me wrong. That’s preferable to being a worshiper of the sacrament of abortion like the Evil Party members. I’ll even concede that makes him “The most prolife prez of the 20th Century.” But that’s no great shakes. It’s like being the Best Opera Singer in Tulsa.



report abuse
 

Ian

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:37 pm


Heh – Billy needs his own blog. :)
Mark needs to start posting on his blog again. :)
What do you think Amy? Do you think Bush is a genuine pro-lifer?
I’ll side with Mark on this one: the stem cell research “compromise” a couple of years ago was a clue, but he’s only placated the pro-life movement, not supported it. Now that he, like Specter, is unaccountable we see it all come out.
Frankly, I don’t think Bush – like most Republicans – cares about abortion one way or another. Arguing about abortion does two things: make conservatives seem irrelevant and get scare tactic donations for NARAL. Abortion will always be legal because not enough people care about the unborn.



report abuse
 

Jonathan Carpenter

posted August 23, 2005 at 11:07 pm


All of you are making great arguments for the election of Bob Casey Jr. to Santorum’s seat. Yes, he is a Democrat and may not be as well liked as his father was, but he is the best that there is. Yes, he did support John Kerry, but do any of you see him jumping into NARAL’s camp after the way they treated his father? I do not.



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted August 24, 2005 at 6:26 am


Great list BillyHW, thank you for posting it. It hardly needs to be said, but I will anyway, that either of the Democrat candidates for
President in 2000 or 2004, would have done everything in their power to help the pro-abort cause and defeat the pro-life cause. However, don’t expect Bush to get any credit in some pro-life quarters. They are the spiritual descendants of the abolitionists in 1860 who criticized Lincoln as being “soft” on the slavery issue. Unless Bush can wave a magic wand and have Congress pass a Constitutional amendment banning abortion and have the States ratify it, he is useless in the eyes of the purists.



report abuse
 

cs

posted August 24, 2005 at 8:23 am


This Pennsylvanian, who actually campained for Specter’s primary opponent, the uncompromisingly PRO-LIFE Pat Toomey, is disappointed with many of you. The Toomey race was not taken seriously enough by the rest of the country, and this is what we have. Rove aside, when Bush and Specter made a whistle-stop in my town, I shook Specter’s hand BECAUSE HE WAS THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. Once the primary is over, you regroup for the win.
Casey, being Catholic, is symapthetic to the pro-life cause, but has done nothing appreciable to advance it. He a Democratic operative, and always will be. He is a legacy candidate.
Rick Santorum, OTOH, has had his very surname villified by the left, and everyone knows where he stands on the issues. Some of his prudential decisions leave much to be desired, but he IS the guy.
I hope you will consider supporting him, especially with your prayers.



report abuse
 

Kevin Miller

posted August 24, 2005 at 9:30 am


I see that this morning’s Washington Post and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette report that Santorum is again announcing plans to grill Roberts about the problem of “judicial activism” (by which, Specter does not, of course, mean Roe).



report abuse
 

Mike Petrik

posted August 24, 2005 at 9:36 am


cs,
My friends on the left despise Santorum precisely because they know he is the real deal.
Mark,
Billy made an assertion which he then backed up with facts. Your “argument” amounted to comparing Billy’s facts with Boettner’s lies and half-truths. You are normally better than this.
Others,
For those of you who say that Republicans really don’t care about abortion, you are a joke. Of course some Republicans don’t care about abortion. And of course some do — greatly. It is obvious that as a group you are not involved with Republicans as real people, but prefer to just throw stones safely from you cyber-perches. After all, why risk impairing your claim to self-righteousness by doing the real work of compromise in the real battle for votes.



report abuse
 

BillyHW

posted August 24, 2005 at 9:52 am


However, don’t expect Bush to get any credit in some pro-life quarters. They are the spiritual descendants of the abolitionists in 1860 who criticized Lincoln as being “soft” on the slavery issue. Unless Bush can wave a magic wand and have Congress pass a Constitutional amendment banning abortion and have the States ratify it, he is useless in the eyes of the purists.
Very good point. Supergenius Thomas Sowell recently laid the smackdown on all the Lincoln bashers as well:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050811.shtml



report abuse
 

Boethius

posted August 24, 2005 at 11:10 am


Great job Billy, cs, and Mike Petrik. There’s no need for me to do anything but cheer from the sidelines on this one.



report abuse
 

Jimmy Huck

posted August 24, 2005 at 12:00 pm


What political incentive is there for a Democrat not to be pro-choice? Most of you conservative folk here would never vote for a pro-life Democrat — even over a pro-choice Republican — anyway. You think the Democrats don’t know this?



report abuse
 

Lynne

posted August 24, 2005 at 12:09 pm


Well, I contributed to Pat Toomey’s campaign last year and I don’t even live in PA…



report abuse
 

Bob L.

posted August 24, 2005 at 12:41 pm


Getting better opera singers in Tulsa is a topic worth contemplation.
There are two approaches which I believe don’t work:
1) Refuse to attend any opera which features singers less talented than Pavarotti. It’s easy to see that this will probably drive opera out of Tulsa.
2) Attend all operas in Tulsa in the hope that increased demand will draw the better talent. The argument could be made that this would merely dilute the distinctions between good and poor opera singers.
It seems to me that the best approach is for the people of Tulsa to truly and sincerely love opera.
Peace be with you,
Bob



report abuse
 

Boethius

posted August 24, 2005 at 1:48 pm


Jimmy Huck said: “Most of you conservative folk here would never vote for a pro-life Democrat — even over a pro-choice Republican — anyway. You think the Democrats don’t know this?”
That is simply not true. The pro-life issue is pre-eminent for all the conservative Catholics I know and also all the ones I have met in the blogosphere.
But Jimmy, you are correct that we would be very careful not to vote for just any pro-life Democrat. There are some truly pro-life Democrats, but there seem to be far more “pro-life” Democrats. You know, the ones that say they’re pro-life but support the filibustering of “out-of-the-mainstream” judges. Take Bob Casey, Jr., for example.



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted August 24, 2005 at 2:07 pm


“Jimmy Huck said: “Most of you conservative folk here would never vote for a pro-life Democrat — even over a pro-choice Republican — anyway. You think the Democrats don’t know this?”
Jimmy Huck, I think it is safe to say that I am perhaps one of the more dedicated Republicans to comment regularly on Open Book. In 1998 I voted for Glen Poshard, pro-life Democrat, over George Ryan, ostensibly pro-life Republican for Governor of Illinois. Why? I thought Poshard was a man of his word on abortion and other issues, and I didn’t trust, rightfully, George Ryan.



report abuse
 

Kicking Over My Traces

posted August 24, 2005 at 4:31 pm


More Info on Weldon Amendment

In a post just below, I passed along information from Amy Wellborn regarding a change in language to the Weldon Amendment introduced by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) Appropriation…



report abuse
 

Kicking Over My Traces

posted August 24, 2005 at 4:32 pm


More Info on Weldon Amendment

In a post just below, I passed along information from Amy Wellborn regarding a change in language to the Weldon Amendment introduced by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) Appropriation…



report abuse
 

Maclin Horton

posted August 24, 2005 at 4:58 pm


Jimmy Huck’s comment may well be an accurate indicator of the Democrats’ view of the possibility of winning over pro-lifers. I think it’s gravely mistaken. Pro-lifers who have any vestige of political savvy–and I don’t claim to have a whole lot–realize that having pro-life Democrats in the mix would greatly benefit the cause, if only by pressuring the Republicans.
And strategy aside, I think by far the majority of pro-lifers who vote Republican have no deep commitment (if they have any at all) to the party and would have little hesitation in crossing over in any race where the Dems had a better (from the pro-life point of view) candidate.
Of course this is all colored by the whole range of so-called “social issues,” so a a mildly pro-choice Repub could conceivably seem like a better pick overall than a mildly pro-life Dem, but if you’re talking about the question of abortion specifically I really have no doubt that a strongly pro-life Dem could vacuum up pro-life votes by the truckload.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

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



Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to Michael, whom he remembered, among other things, as on

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But here's the thing.Whether or not Yates' original novel in

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving, right?Well, here's a worthy recipient for your hard-

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No?Okay...how about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling Episcopalians, all the better.To tell the truth, you can bl

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every minute of labor, describing the intensity of discomfor

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 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.