By Dave Andrusko

Part Two talks about the highly controversial nomination of Goodwin Liu to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Part Three is a heads-up on a bogus proposal in Great Britain. Be sure to tune into www.nationalrighttolifenews.org. Please send your thoughts and comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.  If you'd like, follow me on http://twitter.com/daveha.

Pro-abortion President Barack Obama, Pro-abortion House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Is there anything less surprising than that the controversy over ObamaCare, far from cooling off, is only growing hotter? Let's talk about three aspects--and these are only a few of the scorchers.

First, in this morning's Wall Street Journal, Anna Wilde Mathews has a story headlined, "States Reignite Abortion Debate." The reference is to the response of five states (so far) to the abortion-promoting components of ObamaCare.

As you remember, at the last minute a number of erstwhile pro-life Democrats voted for the greatest congressional expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.

They correctly understood the Senate bill was deeply flawed on many levels, but most assuredly on abortion.

However they tried to sell the (incorrect) Obama line that an Executive Order would make it all better.

The Journal story provides an overview of the work of lawmakers in a growing number of states who "are turning to another provision in the legislation that says states can choose to prevent plans offered through their exchanges from covering abortion altogether," Mathews writes. "That would likely affect most individual and small-group plans in a state, starting when the exchanges launch in 2014."

Mathews draws an unassailable conclusion: "The new state-level proposals are likely to rekindle abortion as a political issue in November elections," with candidates having to take a position." She quotes John C. Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, who said, "Once an issue like this starts being debated in a state, everyone could become involved."

One of the "experts" Mathews consults argues the debate will largely swirl around state races, rather than federal elections, a very dubious conclusion.

So far Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana have introduced bills. "Many of the new bills may fail to become law this year," Mathews writes. "But those that don't pass are likely to resurface next year." Yes, indeed.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.)

Second, the leader of those Democrats who fell into line at the eleventh hour is Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mi.). Depending on the time of the day, he is complaining about pro-lifers who don't agree with him that ObamaCare is now "pro-life," intimating he won't seek re-election this fall, or having his office "downplay the speculation in a statement."

Having just written this sentence, I read a story in today's Detroit Free Press that "All speculation to the contrary aside, U.S. Rep Bart Stupak says he has every intention of running for re-election this fall." In the likely event he does run, Stupak will be competing against pro-abortion Connie Saltonstall in his party's primary, and, assuming he wins, against pro-life Republican Dr. Dan Benishek in the general.

While Stupak gets the lion's share of the attention, he is only one of the Democrats who flip-flopped who will face intense opposition.

The backdrop is something we've talked in numerous TN&Vs: the massive unhappiness with Congress ("A record-low 28% say most members of Congress deserve re-election," according to USA Today); the intense opposition to ObamaCare (in spite of an all-out PR offensive by the President); and the "intensity" gap between critics and supporters.

USA Today reported yesterday that Stan Greenberg, Bill Clinton's pollster, conceded, "If the election were now, we'd have a 'change' election; we'd have a 1994." That year the Democrats lost control of both the House and the Senate.

To be fair, Greenberg pooh-poohed chances of Republicans being in a position to take advantage of voter discontent. But Greenberg's dismissal doesn't change the intensity gap. While 57% of Democrats are more enthusiastic than usual, 69% of Republicans are more enthusiastic, according to the USA Today/Gallup Poll of 1,033 adults.

Nor does it reflect the growing disenchantment with Obama himself. In a poll released a week ago in USA Today, "Twenty-six percent say he deserves 'a great deal' of the blame for the nation's economic problems, nearly double the number who felt that way last summer. In all, half say he deserves at least a moderate amount of blame."

In addition, "By 50%-46%, those surveyed say Obama doesn't deserve re-election."

Finally, there is the public's take on ObamaCare. Pollster.com has rolled together the results of a flock of separate polls and concluded that 51.3% oppose ObamaCare to 42.6% who approve.

No wonder all eyes are turning to this November.

Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

Part Two
Part Three