Selling Anger: What A Deal

Deal Hudson on the EO:

This executive order is nothing more than a promise from one man to another, from Obama to Stupak. It can be withdrawn at any time — or, more likely, it can be ignored. Stupak should know that the promise of a man who once supported infanticide, and who on his first day in office repealed the Mexico City Policy, is not a man you can trust on the issue of abortion.

You can’t expect to raise oodles of money in this economy without engaging in a little hyperbole. As a matter of historical fact, Mr Obama waited until day four of his administration to EO the Mexico City policy into place, bypassing the March for Life day his two predecessors used to ping pong it back and forth. No matter than the so-called policy doesn’t cover abortions for non-contraceptive purposes. In other words, attempt an abortion because of life or health or some non-family reason, and the USgov has no problem, even if a Republican signs the order.

Somehow the meme about the third-most abortion-friendly president* just doesn’t get the cash rolling in.

Today’s vote will go down in history as one of the greatest expansions of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

Will women actually have to choose abortion for this to be so. In other words, what if you expand access to abortion, but nobody takes advantage of it? Abortion rates in the US have been in decline since the early 80’s. Since then, there have been only two upticks: 1988 from ’87 and 1990 from ’89. Each was rather minimal: almost one abortion per one-thousand women.

Since the insurance reform isn’t really taking effect until 2013, I’m not sure if there’s a logical point at which fundraising Republicans pro-lifers can extend an index finger and proclaim, aha! It would seem we have four to six years to find out. But heck, four years is a long time to languish in do-nothing politics. Might as well keep the fires burning, eh?

And for the record, I have no problem with Mr Hudson and other Republicans raising money to further their political agenda. It is a free country. Likewise, we should be free to know the facts behind such appeals, and to point out when people who want something from us are selling the whole truth, or just their selective memory of it. Can we trust people who promoted the phantom of FOCA? You do need, we all should realize, a bill passed by Congress in order for a president to sign it on day one. That’s basic civics. But again, basic civics is not going to energize the base. And its money.

* Certainly behind Bill Clinton by a day at least, if not Richard Nixon on whose watch (and four appointees) SCOTUS ruled on Roe v Wade.


About catholicsensibility

Todd lives in the Pacific Northwest, serving a Catholic parish as a lay minister.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Selling Anger: What A Deal

  1. Kevin says:

    Over ONE MILLION murdered babies a year and you defend the murderers and attack those trying to stop it.

    No wonder abortion rages on with people like you to defend the murderers

  2. Todd says:

    Thanks for commenting, Kevin, but reading comprehension is helpful. We don’t live in an enemy-of-my-enemy system here. I’m critical of some of the methods of the political pro-life movement.

    And, by the way, the worldwide figure on abortion and infanticide is closer to eight figures than a million.

  3. Jimmy Mac says:

    When in wonder, when in doubt –
    Run in circles, scream and shout.

    God bless those who did the right thing and began the process of ensuring healthcare for the millions who need it. There’s a lot of work yet to be done, but the necessary first steps have been taken.

  4. David D. says:

    Well the S&P Health Care Sector Index, including the large hospital operating companies, the major pharmaceuticals and, yes, the big health insurance providers, continued its 52 week surge.

  5. Tony says:

    The pro-life community is finally coming to the realization that they can never trust the Democrat party again (they are in no way “democratic”).

  6. Bill Kurtz says:

    I’d advise Tony to check out last week’s column by Ross Douthat, a pro-lifer by the way, on the New York Times website. He pointed out that pro-lifers need support in both political parties, because there are many of us who oppose abortion, but can’t swallow the Beck-Limbaugh dogma that any move to help the poor is “socialism” and must be opposed.
    “There are still pro-life Democrats for a reason,” he wrote. “Because many abortion opponents can’t reconcile their views on social justice with the harder-edged ‘any redistribution equals socialism’ tendencies in the Republican Party.”
    Or as another pro-life Democratic congressman, James Oberstar of Minnesota, once said, Republicans are pro-life until you’re born. Then you’re on your own.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s