One of the biggest issues arising out of the socialist revolution, passage of the health care bill in the House was the Stupak Amendment, which barred federal funds from going to abortion. It was a shrewd move by the Democrats to appease the pro-life Blue Dogs. In the aftermath of the bill’s narrow success, conservatives were left wondering, did the Stupak Amendment win the abortion battle but lose the health care war? This gets into the nitty-gritty part of politics. In any defeat, there are always a slough of “what ifs” (like if Jack Ryan didn’t like sex clubs would Barack Obama have won his Senate seat in 2004?) This is a topic that bloggers and graduate students will debate for a long time.

I’ve seen a lot of ire aimed at National Right to Life, particularly for releasing an advisory announcing that they would score “nay” votes for the amendment as opposition to life. This is an extremely difficult situation, and I don’t think that there is an easy answer. The Stupak Amendment created a dilemma that conservatives don’t see quite as often as liberals: party politics vs. issue politics.

National Right to Life is not a partisan organization. While the vast majority of their membership  and likely most of their staff probably vote Republican, they don’t owe any allegiance to either party. Their duty is to ensure that the mission of the organization is carried out and not to toe a party line. In fact on their mission statement page (what a horrible web site!) they explain:

The ultimate goal of the National Right to Life Committee is to restore legal protection to innocent human life. The primary interest of the National Right to Life Committee and its members has been the abortion controversy; however, it is also concerned with related matters of medical ethics which relate to the right to life issues of euthanasia and infanticide. The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense.

Issue politics are tricky. Victories often come at the cost of a political party or a key member. It’s never simple. In my opinion, National Right to Life did their job. It was likely painful for them as individuals, but they are responsible to their board of directors, donors and supporters to fight for legislation that defends life. The Stupak Amendment did exactly that. As a social and fiscal conservative, this was even hard for me to decide. Ultimately, I would have done what National Right to Life did. They were correct in focusing on the life issue, even at the expense of passing the bill.

I do worry if the Stupak Amendment will make it through to conference if health care reform passes in the Senate. I was in the Gallery for the exchange between Boehner and Rangel and have absolutely no faith that life will ultimately be protected.

We can discuss if Pelosicare would have passed without the Stupak Amendment, but does it matter? At the end of the day, National Right to Life and other pro-life organizations did their job. It was the fault of the Republican party and Republican House members for not doing a better job in presenting their arguments. Pro-lifers should not be blamed for the failure of the party.

Tags: Abortion, Boehner, health care, National Right to Life, Pelosicare, Rangel, Republicans, Stupak Amendment

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 8th, 2009 at 11:33 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.