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.
Liberal policies have forced ongoing and increased racial consciousness and division in the country. (comments)
Jeb Bush called me in 1994. He wanted to hear more about my thoughts about welfare, how it could be reformed, and what we should be thinking about regarding revitalizing inner city life. (comments)
A concern for Republicans is minority migration patterns. Blacks, Hispanics and Asians have been moving from blue states to red states. (comments)
Science in the hands of politicians who invest other people's money is a formula for failure and waste. (comments)
I agree with Rubio, America is losing ground in the world today because it is not being America. (comments)
Elizabeth Warren and Bill de Blasio's dream is that they get to run everybody's life. (comments)
Rules rooted in biblical tradition that enable virtue and self-governance have been increasingly displaced by government and moral relativism. (comments)
This is a battle about redefining the values of our nation's culture and, hence, redefining our nation itself. (comments)
Social Security taxes preclude wealth creation for low-income workers by taxing away the only funds they have available... (comments)
Is the American public happy with the socialism they've gotten thus far? (comments)
The objective of pro-homosexual campaigns is to de-legitimize and annihilate Christianity in America. (comments)
Ted Cruz sees American freedom centered not in government, but in individuals taking personal responsibility for their lives. (comments)
Pastors know that blacks pay a high price for the havoc that moral relativism has caused. (comments)
A war is taking place in our country to delegitimize religion. (comments)
Can John Kerry really be serious that he knows better what makes Israel safe than Israel's own Prime Minister? (comments)
Dr. King was outspoken in his support of Israel and today there is a street named for him in Jerusalem. (comments)
Who is looking out for black interests -- the Black Caucus or the white Republican they call a racist? (comments)
After Martin Luther King's speech, what followed were government policies defined and motivated not by content of character but by race, gender, and income. (comments)
By 2022, the percentage of white students in public schools will be down to 45.9 percent and the minority percent will increase to 54.7 percent. (comments)
Don't tell people where to live, which is what government low-income housing does. (comments)