• Article Tools
• Print
• RSS

Howling Mad

The Pro-Choice Lobby Thwarted

by Charlie Spiering

In the midst of President Barack Obama’s whirlwind campaign, he stood behind a Planned Parenthood podium to pledge his support to an organization that had faced years of increasing restrictions on the abortion industry.

“There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice,” Obama said last July. “On this fundamental issue, I will not yield, and Planned Parenthood will not yield.”

His promise was met with raucous applause.

Over a year later came the Stupak amendment.

Few had heard about pro-life Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak until he spearheaded a winning coalition of 40 members of his party that forced Nancy Pelosi to include a pro-life amendment into the health care bill. Pro-life Americans were cheered to know that the House of Representatives, led by Democrats, could pass abortion restrictions.

“I laid out a very simple principle, which is, this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill,” Obama said in an interview after the House bill passed. “And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is, federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.”

However, while President Obama went on to suggest that the bill “shouldn’t change the status quo of abortion,” he added that “there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we’re not changing the status quo.”

It’s an admission that pro-lifers have taken to mean the president will work to remove the Stupak amendment from the final bill – a worry not exactly assuaged by White House adviser David Axelrod, who recently signaled that the administration is discussing the pro-life language with Congress and “how to adjust it accordingly.”  

Still, the pro-choice lobby is furious.

After all, although President Obama’s election gave abortion supporters hope, their battle to reduce eight years of abortion restrictions signed by President George W. Bush hasn’t been easy. The Freedom of Choice act – their ultimate wish list – failed to materialize after the election, even though the newly elected president promised to make it “the first thing that I’d do.”

Likewise, in a 55-page report delivered to the White House last fall, a large coalition of abortion advocates boldly informed the incoming administration that it was time to end “ideologically driven government restrictions” and support $1.5 billion in additional funding for their organizations.

While some of their demands have been met – the rescinding of the Mexico City Policy is a prime example – this was done so quietly, as the administration anxiously sought to avoid a pro-abortion label.

Thus, the abortion industry has turned to the health care bill, hoping that once more it could open up federal funding for abortions under the banner of assisting the uninsured. Efforts to expand abortion coverage through the bill were initially successful, and although they paid lip service to proposed abortion restrictions, they were pleased with a bill that – prior to the Stupak amendment – would pay for health plans that cover abortions.

The current outrage over the Stupak amendment reveals their true intentions. Not content with the status quo or common ground – as so often mentioned by our president – they are not simply looking to remove restrictions on abortion. Instead they are seeking a system that will fund the abortion industry, using tax-payer dollars to increase their profits. Their plan to use federal funds to help women get access to abortion failed, so they are now working furiously against the Stupak Amendment.

“We demand that the Senate pass a bill free of these unprecedented restrictions on abortion and that the final bill protect a woman’s right to safely access this legal medical procedure,” stated Janice Rocco, Southwest Regional Director of the National Organization for Women (NOW) after the health care bill passed with the Stupak amendment.

“The fight is not over,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, promising to “mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to remove this dangerous provision from the health-care bill and stop additional attacks.”

Already, at the bidding of pro-abortion activists, 41 House Democrats have threatened to vote against their party’s signature issue of health care reform if the Stupak amendment is retained. Leaders of pro-choice groups such as the National Organization for Women and EMILY’s List have visited the White House to voice their anger.

It’s an anger especially targeted at the Catholic Church, a key proponent of the Stupak Amendment.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the bishops “hijacked” the bill with their promotion of the Stupak Amendment.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, likewise accused the bishops for having “injected divisive politics” into the debate.

Planned Parenthood has summoned 80 progressive groups to organize against the amendment after its passage. NARAL and NOW have already directed calls to Democratic senators and picketed their offices.

President Obama’s careful answers on the Stupak amendment reflect the precarious place in which his administration finds itself: while a firm supporter of pro-abortion groups, he may be forced to disappoint them by signing a bill with the Stupak provision included.

Congressional Democrats are also being thrown in the crucible: on one hand, feeling the heat from the abortion industry – one of the party’s strongest supporters – and on the other, facing a nation of constituents that is becoming increasingly pro-life. In September, Rasmussen Reports found that nearly half of Americans believe government-subsidized health plans should not cover abortion. Significantly, only 13% of Americans say they should. 

Pro-life forces celebrated the passage of the Stupak amendment as a significant victory over the expansion of abortion in America. But the battle is far from over – for either side.

 

---

(The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Headline Bistro or the Knights of Columbus.)