Some may scoff, thinking the pro-life community is dead. Remember that young people are more pro-life than pro-choice.

Also, the pro-abortion community has been vastly out-fundraised in recent years. That’s out-fundraised in years when there hasn’t been a major pro-life battle waged. The appointments of Sotomayor and Sebelius were the biggest ones in recent years. With Stupak there’s an element of betrayal that people will not soon forget. He made it personal.

The grassroots are out for blood. The RNC hit their goal of raising $402,010 in less than 12 20* hours and just upped their moneybomb. Last night on Twitter, people were practically throwing their wallets at anyone who was running against Stupak in MI-1. The path to November will be quite a ride.

Susan B. Anthony List quickly took back the “Defender of Life” award that was promised to Stupak at their event next week. The Susan B. Anthony Candidate List Fund president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, told the press:

“Let me be clear: any representative, including Rep. Stupak, who votes for this healthcare bill can no longer call themselves ‘pro-life.’ The Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund will not endorse, or support in any capacity, any Member of Congress who votes for this bill in any future election. Now through Election Day 2010, these representatives will learn that votes have consequences. The SBA List Candidate Fund will work tirelessly to help defeat Members who support this legislation and make sure their constituents know exactly how they voted. We will actively seek out true pro-life candidates to oppose Members who vote ‘yes’ on this bill, whether it be in general or primary elections. For these Members, it will be a quick downhill slide to defeat in November.”

National Right to Life:

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) remains strongly opposed to the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590). A lawmaker who votes for this bill is voting to require federal agencies to subsidize and administer health plans that will pay for elective abortion, and voting to undermine longstanding pro-life policies in other ways as well. Pro-life citizens nationwide know that this is a pro-abortion bill. Pro-life citizens know, and they will be reminded again and again, which lawmakers deserve their gratitude for voting against this pro-abortion legislation.

The Family Research Council released the strongest statement I’ve ever seen Tony Perkins utter:

FRC Action will seek to defeat many of the Members from majority pro-life districts who voted wrong today, and they will have plenty of free time to realize the grave mistake they have committed on the unborn today with their vote.

Americans United for Life have a blog post up explaining why Stupak’s Executive Order still funds abortion.

*I was wrong. The RNC hit their goal after 20 hours via TechRepublican.

• Kay Hagan (NC)
• Evan Bayh (IN)
• Ben Nelson (NE)
• Mary Landrieu (LA)
• Mark Blegich (AK)
• Kent Conrad (ND)
• Byron Dorgan (ND)
• Blanche Lincoln (AR)
• Mark Pryor (AR)

The American people simply need more time to debate and read through this version of the bill. It’s even longer than the House version  (2,074 pages) and does not protect life. National Right to Life exclaimed that the Reid bill is “unacceptable:”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) has rejected the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts Amendment and has substituted completely unacceptable language that would result in coverage of abortion on demand in two big new federal government programs.

According to Patient’s First (part of Americans for Prosperity), here are just three problems with the bill. They’ve also outlined 10 more problems.

1.”The Reid bill starts hiking taxes and cutting Medicare immediately, while the new spending programs are delayed until January 2014…Without this gimmick, the fully phased in 10-year cost would be not the much-touted $848 billion is about $2.5 trillion.”

2.”The Reid bill pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 23 percent in 2011 and stay at that low level. That’s totally dishonest, because it would drive most doctors out of Medicare. That raises the real price-tag of the bill another $247 billion.”

3.”The bill includes yet another new entitlement program, a long-term care insurance program called the CLASS Act. This new federal entitlement program will supposedly reduce the deficit. That’s because the CBO counts the program’s 10-year revenues of $72 billion as deficit reduction to help pay for the Reid bill, even though it will cost far more than it raises once benefits start being collected in the future. This is another new entitlement time-bomb, when Social Security and Medicare already have staggering multi-trillion dollar unfunded liabilities.”

Tennesseans, wondering how our senators feel? Thankfully, both issued strong statements against it.

Alexander:

Senator Reid’s bill is appropriate for the season: it’s the same turkey you didn’t like in August, and it’s not going to taste any better on Thanksgiving. Not much has changed. The bill still means higher premiums, it still means higher taxes, and it still cuts Medicare. It’s still 2,000 pages, and it still costs more than $2 trillion when fully implemented — and that doesn’t take into account a quarter-trillion-dollar doctors’ Medicare reimbursement. And it still sends struggling states new Medicaid costs that will force states to raise taxes or damage higher education or both.

Corker:

“Like most Americans, I want to see responsible health care reform, but paying for it by sending an unfunded mandate to states, taking money from Medicare – which is already insolvent – to fund a new federal entitlement, and passing off costs to future generations does not pass the common sense test,” said Corker. “I actually thought Sen. Reid would try to put something forth that was more sensible, but from what I’ve seen of the 2,074 page bill thus far, it looks even more sinister. This is taking the debate and our country in exactly the wrong direction. We’re literally spending our future away.

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.