November 5, 2010

Please send me your comments!

By Dave Andrusko

Although by itself it is not strictly our concern as single-issue pro-lifers, the massive loss of Democratic seats in places like the Deep South and the Midwest is providing lots and lots of grist for the mill. "After Tuesday, Democrats, incredibly, hold a majority of the congressional delegation in only three states--Iowa, New Mexico, and Vermont--that don't directly touch an ocean," writes the National Journal's Ronald Brownstein. "Republicans similarly routed Democrats in gubernatorial races across the Midwest and the border states, from Ohio and Tennessee to Wisconsin and Iowa." And with some contests still too close to call, it could get worse.

Members of the NRLC staff, Luis Zaffirini, Elizabeth Spillman, and Jonathan Rogers, monitor the exciting election night results at NRLC headquarters.

But there are two intersection points between this massive setback for Democrats and our Movement. One is that a lot of those Democrats were defeated because they were opposed by strong pro-life Republicans. The other is when our Movement is accused of bad faith--specifically towards Democrats who had voted pro-life but whose mettle melted when they voted for ObamaCare and who subsequently paid the price at the polls.

The rationales and rationalizations take several forms. At the top of the list is the insistence that ObamaCare does not provide federal subsidies for health plans that pay for abortions; or if it did, President Obama's Executive Order cleansed it of any abortion elements. Neither is true as NRLC Federal Legislative Director Douglas Johnson has demonstrated conclusively (http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/DvSBA/GenericAffidavitOfDouglasJohnsonNRLC.pdf).

Others try to rewrite the history of what transpired, or cover it with a fog of misrepresentations. To clarify: (a) many of the same Democrats who as late as March protested the abortion provisions in ObamaCare nonetheless later voted for the bill, even though nothing had been done to include an effective prohibition on federal subsidies for abortion; and (b) NRLC made it crystal-clear that we vehemently opposed ObamaCare. None of these Democrats could pretend they didn't know our position and that we would inform the pro-life world.

What else? Imputing their motivation to us. There are "pro-Life" organizations whose first priority is electing Democrats. That's between them and their consciences. What is not acceptable is to accuse NRLC of being "more concerned with promoting the Republican Party than the pro-life movement," according to columnist David Gibson. Talk about seeing the speck in the other person's eyes and missing the log in your own!

To name just one more, Gibson, who loves to bash single-issue pro-life organizations such as NRLC, told his readers that "many pro-life groups" were so used to having only Republicans "return their calls that they did not adjust easily to the bipartisan possibilities, and when the debate over abortion funding in health care exploded, they quickly turned on pro-life Democrats."

Really? We were/are so petty (and so stupid) that we couldn't--or wouldn't--"adjust"? More revisionist history to cover up the actions of what a friend of mine calls "faux-life Democrats."

First, we can agree or disagree about the efficacy of certain collateral proposals. But we can never, ever take our eye off the ball. We insist that the bottom line is stopping the expansion of abortion, which is a high priority Action Item for pro-abortion President Barack Obama and the equally pro-abortion Democratic leaders of the House and Senate.

Second, we didn't "quickly turn" at all. NRLC's opposition was known to every reporter in town, not to mention every member of the House and Senate and their staffs. In an eleven-page factsheet sent to the House in August 2009, for example, NRLC said in the first paragraph, "Pro-abortion advocacy groups view health care reform as a vehicle for greatly expanding 'access' to abortion, using the structure and resources of the federal government. Indeed, enactment of the Obama-backed legislation could produce the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade."

NRLC supports the cause of unborn babies and the vulnerable medically dependent, not one or the other party. But if one party voluntarily decamps, that is their choice, not ours.

Please send your comments on Today's News & Views and National Right to Life News Today to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha.

Part Three
Part One