Last week the House passed with bipartisan support the Protect Life Act, which amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to assure that no taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. It also assures that health care providers who do not wish to provide abortions are not forced to by government.
The bill's Republican sponsor, Joe Pitts, R-Penn., had co-sponsored essentially the same amendment along with then-congressman Bart Stupak, D-Mich., when Obamacare was in the making in 2009.
Because a similar provision was not in the Senate version of the bill, and had no prospect of making it through the Senate, Stupak stood as a major obstacle to the passage of Obamacare.
In the end, the ways of Washington prevailed, and Stupak caved to pressure from the White House. He agreed to support the health care bill without his anti-abortion provision, in exchange for President Barack Obama issuing an executive order prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions in health care provided in the framework of Obamacare.
An executive order is a flimsy substitute for law so Pitts found another pro-life Democrat, Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., to co-sponsor his amendment, which has now passed the House 251-172.
However Pitts' new bill faces the same prospects as the amendment that he co-sponsored with Stupak in 2009. Its chances of passage in the Senate are remote.
So why bother?
After the bill passed, I was asked on a PBS talk show "To the Contrary" if Republicans were being frivolous in taking up congressional floor time to deal with abortion when what Americans want today is congressional action on the economy.
My response was "no, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and actually in light of Obamacare, it is critical for lawmakers to protect healthcare workers and hospitals with a conscience clause."
In fact, the attention that the bill has gotten in the short time since it passed the House indicates that the level of interest in abortion, and the potential use of taxpayer funds for it, remains high.
Two high level Democrats -- former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, the Democratic National Committee chairwoman -- issued statements criticizing the bill shortly after it passed.
According to Pelosi, the provision assuring that health care providers, including hospitals, are not forced to provide abortions, even though they receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, means "that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene."
Wasserman Schultz said, "This extreme legislation is dangerous for women's health and does nothing to address the jobs crisis facing American families."
Liberals love to frame the killing of developing humans as being about women's lives, health and rights. But, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, about 3 percent of abortions are performed for reasons of a woman's health. Abortions that are performed because a woman's life is in danger amount to a fraction of 1 percent. That leaves more than 96 percent for convenience with some 50 percent repeat customers.
Regarding abortion, the liberal agenda is really about two things. One, an alleged right to sexual promiscuity and two, an alleged right to have others bear social and financial responsibility for that promiscuity.
Fortunately, a sizable part of the American population doesn't see things this way. And, fortunately, a sizable part of our population remains in awe of the miracle of life and our responsibilities toward all aspects of life, both in and outside the womb.
It doesn't take that much thought to realize the fallacious thinking that suggests that matters of economy and matters of morality have nothing to do with each other.
The "right to abortion" culture is simply a subset of the entitlement culture, the culture that says your life is about making claims on others rather than personal responsibility.
Disrespect for life and disrespect for property go hand in hand. We can't divorce our sexual promiscuity from our fiscal promiscuity. Restoring personal responsibility in both areas is what we need today to get our nation back on track.
The civil rights movement became unmoored from the religious and moral values that drove it to begin with. (comments)
Many with great political power in Washington, who control so much of our money, cannot distinguish between a fact and an opinion. (comments)
Republicans have not stood ground and provided a real conservative alternative to the party of the left. (comments)
As the politics of the welfare state and moral relativism have increasingly taken control of the country, they have disproportionately hit our minority communities. (comments)
The constitution does not exist to use government power to force the set of values of one private citizen on other. (comments)
If the forces of anger and fear prevail, we will pay a dear price. (comments)
Gallup points to the extent to which voters, particularly Republicans, are being turned off. (comments)
Is it any wonder why so many feel that our government has gotten way out of hand? (comments)
The best circumstances cannot save a sick spirit and sick values. (comments)
The major domestic crises we face today trace to Supreme Court decisions. (comments)
Evidence is overwhelming regarding the central importance of the traditional family to economic success. (comments)
It is the healthy sense of right and wrong that liberals want to destroy. (comments)
Republicans need to be as clear with the country as Sanders with an alternative. (comments)
Huge, unproductive expenditures need to be redirected to encourage the values and behavior that move people out of poverty. (comments)
My five principles for restoring America. (comments)
The institutions -- FHA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac -- and the policies that led to the 2008 meltdown are still in place. (comments)
The D.C. school voucher program is cut and the Congressional Black Caucus does nothing. (comments)
Big-government solutions undermined the traditionally successful values and institutions of the country. (comments)