The callous limits of the ‘pro-life’ crowd

October 18, 2007

An early version of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) bill included Medicare provisions that some conservatives believed might lead to government-sponsored euthanasia. The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) actively opposed that bill, and told lawmakers it would count towards the group’s annual scorecard.

But Dems agreed to drop the provision, leading to a “clean” S-CHIP bill that would help millions of children, parents, and pregnant women. Again, the National Right to Life Committee balked. Yesterday, 10 pro-life House Dems asked why.

“I couldn’t believe it,” said Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) in an interview with The Hill. “It absolutely didn’t make sense to my constituents, either.”

Those provisions were stripped, but the NRLC has not swung in favor of the SCHIP bill that Congress passed and President Bush vetoed. This has irked some of the group’s typical allies, who viewed its campaign as unfair.

Posing a rhetorical question to the NRLC, Ryan asked: “Why aren’t you supporting it now? Are you really concerned with protecting life or are you concerned with protecting the Bush administration?”

I think we know the answer to that one.

The S-CHIP override vote is going to be close, though it appears the majority will come a few votes shy of the two-thirds threshold. The NRLC’s backing could help push a few conservatives who are on the fence.

But the group apparently isn’t quite as “pro-life” as they claim.

It’s worth noting that some religious groups, including abortion opponents, have been doing their due diligence. Catholics United, for example, launched a radio ad campaign on S-CHIP last week.

“Building a true culture of life requires public policies that promote the welfare of the most vulnerable,” said Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United. “At the heart of the Christian faith is a deep and abiding concern for the need of others. Pro-life Christians who serve in Congress should honor this commitment by supporting health care for poor children.” […]

The script for the radio commercial reads: “I’m the mother of three children, and I’m pro-life. I believe that protecting the lives our children must be our nation’s number one moral priority. That’s why I’m concerned that Congressman X says he’s pro-life but votes against health care for poor children. That’s not pro-life. That’s not pro-family. Tell Congressman X to vote for health care for children. Call him today at XXXX, that’s XXXXX.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities USA, and the Catholic Health Association have all urged Congress and President Bush to support SCHIP.

And yet, there’s the National Right to Life Committee. Asked for the group’s reaction, Douglas Johnson, NRLC’s legislative director, told The Hill, “There’s nothing there [in the SCHIP bill] for us to really grab onto.”

Something to remember the next time this crowd talks about being “pro-family.”

I really like Ryan. He’s one of the strongest advocates out there for the Democrats’ economic agenda, and as a young guy who’s not well known he brings a certain freshness to the discourse. But his anti-abortion stance probably limits how much visibility the party poobahs allow him to have. Without commenting on that position, I think this is unfortunate.

It’s beyond infuriating that S-CHIP is going to fail. The question then becomes whether the Democrats hold the welfare of those served by the program hostage to politics–not bringing it up again so as to run on it next year–or do the right thing by them, but leave those who would be covered by the expansion out in the cold, and make a compromise in the meantime. You know what the Republicans would do; they’d politicize the situation, and the human cost be damned. But when you actually take governance seriously, it’s not as easy a call.

  • dajafi, i thnk the answer is that you do all of the above.

    1) You cut the best deal you can on the immediate reauthorization – remind the Repubs and Bush how close you came to override and push to double his offer of 6 to 12 (which of course cuts the Dems 35 by 2/3rds), but it still lets Dems claim a win if they have any PR skills).

    2) You run an aggressive political campaign on how many low-income, working class, and middle class American children remain uninsured, you compare the cost and benefits to tax breaks for the filthy rich and to the unpopular war, and point out how close we are, and how it is critical to elect even a few more Dems to Congress.

    3) Just after Labor Day 2008 you run the Dems full funding proposal back through for a roll call vote – as a kickoff to the homestretch of the campaign. Either way you win: you may get the extra several votes to pass it, or you have the perfect and perfectly timed campaign issue – all without sacrificing the innocent beneficiaries to the political infighting.

  • Just in time to coincide with the holiday season, the NRLC exhibits the mentality of Ebeneezer Scrooge with their version of, “Let them die, and thus decrease the surplus population.” Because to them, only the Right are entitled to Life.

  • The “Right to Life” movement isn’t about life, and it isn’t about children, and sorry Steve, it’s not about supporting Bush either. It’s about control of women. It’s tiresome to year after year see the most perceptive liberal voices tiptoe around the Right to Life talking points as if what they say about themselves is what we should judge them by, while missing this basic point that makes their combined actions make sense.

  • Way back in the 80’s, I remember my church (Unitarian) attempting to publicize the fact that to the Moral Majority, government concern with a foetus began at conception and ended at birth. We have the same thing today: Christers are real concerned with the health of a ‘child’ only until it is born. See, after a child is born, they can be baptised/saved/born again/whatever immediately, and their soul is saved. If a child dies of an infection at age 5 because they cannot get medical care, all the better — the Christers get the kid’s soul before they grow up and start using critical thought.

  • Millionth time I’ve said this, but “pro-life” people are just anti-sex.

    They’re Puritans.

    They can’t stand the idea of someone else getting off, having an orgasm, sharing the pleasure of their bodies with others. They want the withered hand of their stern and vindictive god to whack the little pee-pees of all us naughty little libertines.

    They want all sex to be PUNISHED– with pregnancy. There’s nothing more to it than that.

    You can test this: ask people who are so uptight about saving these little blastocysts, how they feel about birth control. It won’t take long to hear them attacking the idea of sex for pleasure. Well, there it is.

    • Comments are closed.