Monday, November 09, 2009

Is Obama getting squishy on abortion?

Remember this?

Here is the President speaking on September 9 before a joint session of Congress:
And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.
Sounds pretty definite, doesn't it?

Yet, here is the President's press spokesman today.
When asked whether the president supported Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) amendment to prohibit the public insurance plan from covering abortion services, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dodged the question -- multiple times.

"Well, ask me that right before Christmas and the end of the New Year," Gibbs said during today's press briefing, noting the president still expected to sign a healthcare bill before the year's end.

The press secretary later clarified, "We will work on this and continue to seek consensus and common ground."

....But Gibbs on Monday offered little insight into whether the president would meet with pro-life or pro-choice House members in the coming days, much less where Obama -- who emphasized his pro-choice positions on the campaign trail in 2008 -- might ultimately side in the new debate.

"I'm going to leave it at the earlier answer that we're going to continue to work through and make progress on these issues," he repeated to reporters.
Sounds rather mushy, doesn't it? Sounds like another promise Obama is willing to go back on, if he has to. He's sounding tough when he talks to Jake Tapper today, but he still is leaving the door open for further negotiations to make both pro-choice and pro-life people happy. He's not going to be able to find some magic language that both funds abortion with federal dollars and doesn't fund it. And that is what the debate is about.

You know the pro-choice Democrats who are so outraged by the Stupak amendment and making threats about voting against the bill if it remains in are betraying that they don't really believe that private insurance companies will remain in business after Obamacare passes. If they truly believed it, they wouldn't be so upset about the Stupak amendment which is about maintaining the status quo of the Hyde Amendment which is what we have now - no federal funding of abortions. But private insurance policies could still fund abortions. That's the situation we have now. If the Democrats believed all their promises about how they're just offering a choice to health insurance and that no one's private health insurance would change under their plans, they would be willing to vote for the Stupak Amendment. People could get the private plans if abortion coverage was so important to them.

But if, as conservatives argue, the federal option will soon crowd out private plans and eventually be our sole choice for health insurance as private plans find they can't compete with a public plan that can regulate prices and use the taxpayers' money to make up shortfalls, then those who want an abortion plan wouldn't be able to depend on their private options.

The fact that pro-choice Democrats are so outraged indicates that they don't truly believe their soothing promises about how nothing will change about our private plans once a public option is enacted.

However, one more thing I don't believe is that these 41 Democrats who are writing Nancy Pelosi with their threats will remain strong about not voting for a conference report that doesn't include funding of abortion. If a conference bill does come out with what the Democrats want otherwise, they'll swallow hard and vote for it, holding onto the faith that they'll be able to slip abortion funding in later.

15 comments:

Bill B. said...

If you don't like abortion, then don't have one.

But don't allow the government to make the choice on behalf of any woman.

Government has no legitimate role in deciding intimate choices like this on behalf of any woman.

Bachbone said...

Obama isn't getting squishy on abortion. He's just playing his usual game of allowing subordinates to do his dirty work. Then, if/when the proverbial p**p hits the fan, he can play it whichever way he needs to play it. Either way, he can throw whomever he needs to under the bus as being responsible.

Dr Weevil said...

If you don't like waterboarding, don't waterboard anyone. No one's forced to take a job with the feds.

equitus said...

This question is about public funding of abortions, BB. How did you miss that?

tfhr said...

Biddle,

Government has a legitimate role in protecting the most defenseless among us and that would include unborn babies and even child prostitutes, unless of course you're so beholden to ACORN that you cannot distinguish a crime from "community organizing".

Pat Patterson said...

If you don't like parricide, then don't do it.

But don' allow the government to make the choice on behalf of any children.

Government has no legitimate role in deciding intimate choices like this on the behalf of any heir.

Bill B. said...

Sorry, man. If the cells cannot survive independently of the mother, then they are the mother's cells to do with as she sees fit. After the embryo can sustain life outside the mother's body, then you get a say.

And even if you had the intellectual ability to convincingly demonstrate that abortion is the moral equivalent of waterboarding, or ACORN activities, then wouldn't you just be proving to yourself that neither activity should be done? Just curious.

Skay said...

If you want abortions bb than YOU pay for them on your own. That is what this is about.The rest of us do not want to be forced by the government to pay for or participate in abortions and that is exactly where Obama/Pelosi/Reid are going with this.
of course you know that.

You are right--
Abortion is a violent attack on an innocent living human being within the whomb resulting in death almost every time.The few times it does not--a mistake has been made by the abortionist. The death count is in the millions.
Waterboarding does not result in death -- and has not been done on the innocent unless you consider terrorists innocent.

No comparison.

That little human heart starts beating a long time before the baby can live independently of its mother bb. It is not just tissue.

tfhr said...

Biddle,

Are you harking back to the days when black people were not considered human? That was an era when it was convenient to dismiss their quest for the same rights as all other Americans.

Last week a soldier was murdered at FT Hood. Her baby died with her. Is that one murder or two? 14 dead or just 13 dead?

While you mull that over the rest of us would prefer that our tax dollars not be used to kill life in the womb.

Pat Patterson said...

That collection of cells can't survive without the direct intervention of the parents for quite a few years. So I guess if you don't like how Buddy is turning out then it's none of the government's business to interfere if it's decided that instead of kindergarten just have a very late term abortion performed and try again.

Bill B. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dr Weevil said...

Did Bill Biddle just call someone "Fuhrer"? What kind of [expletive deleted] would do such a thing? It's Betsy's blog, but I do not understand why she doesn't just ban the creep.

Not only a creep, but an idiot. A fetus cannot (in general) live without its mother, but neither can a six-month-old child survive without its mother or some very close equivalent (someone to give it milk and change its diapers). We're still not allowed to kill them, even by neglect. In fact, a fetus that is simply left alone and ignored by its mother and everyone else will live a lot longer than a six-month-old that is left alone and ignored by its mother and everyone else.

Pat Patterson said...

On an earlier one of our two sock puppets asked that Betsy talk to some real liberals. Obviously they weren't referring to themselves.

Betsy Newmark said...

Sorry, that last comment by Bill B. just slipped by me. I didn't read it all the way through.

tfhr said...

Betsy,

Totally understandable - who wants to read all the way through when there is rarely anything of value to be found?