By Dave Andrusko

Part Two looks at a nearly $2 million settlement against a New Jersey abortion clinic. Please send your comments on either part to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you'd like, follow me on http://twitter.com/daveha.

As this is being composed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) is attempting to tie up a number of critically important loose ends without which immediate prospects for passing his "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" are substantially reduced. Abortion is, if not at the top of that list, darn close.

As we head into the homestretch of this phase of this protracted battle, two of the key players to emerge are Democratic Senators Bob Casey (Pa.) and pro-life Ben Nelson (Neb.)

Pro-life Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)

Sen. Nelson "wants an ironclad ban on using subsidies to buy policies that include abortion coverage," as the Washington Post observes. That would be language which tracks the pro-life Stupak-Pitts amendment, adopted by the House November 7, on a vote of 240-194.

Reid, of course, wants none of that. But he does want to be credited with finding "compromise" language. Sen. Casey has been his envoy, but pro-lifers are not buying what Casey is selling.

"This is far cry from the Stupak Amendment," NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson told reporters, referring to Casey's language. "This proposal would break from the long-established principles of the Hyde Amendment by providing federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortion on demand. This is entirely unacceptable."

He added, "It is particularly offensive that the proposal apparently would make it the default position for the federal government to subsidize plans that cover abortion on demand, and then permit individual citizens to apply for conscientious objector status."

Johnson's characterization of the Casey proposal is fully justified: "This is an exercise is cosmetics--like putting lipstick on a legislative warthog."

Sen. Nelson agrees the new language is insufficient. Asked this morning by KLIN radio in Lincoln, Nebraska, "Has the federal funding for abortion language been changed enough to satisfy you?" Nelson replied, "No."

Two other quick points.

First, the more desperate the pro-abortion Senate leadership becomes, the more it and its allies in the media will denounce pro-lifers for an entire litany of "sins." There will be many components but the glue that holds these complaints is the wholly fallacious contention that Senate pro-abortionists are merely trying to maintain the "status quo."

Second, public opinion has turned dramatically against health care restructuring. Understandably, President Obama and his fellow pro-abortionists assume that the longer the debate goes on, the more and more the American people will vocally oppose their ideas about transforming a sixth of the entire American economy. Thus, there will be wheeling and dealing in a frantic effort to get something passed by Christmas.

You must continue to voice your opposition. Regularly visit http://nrlactioncenter.com. There you will read "Time is short! Please telephone the offices of your two U.S. senators. Urge them to oppose the Reid health care bill (H.R. 3590), and to oppose "cloture" (ending debate) on the bill. The Washington offices of all U.S. senators can be reached through the Capitol Switchboard, 202-224-3121 (just tell the operator the name of your senator OR the name of your state). If you scroll to the bottom of this alert, you will find additional suggestions for ways to communicate with your senators on this issue.

Part Two