Aa the debate over the Stupak Amendment during the health care debate showed, the House of Representatives is anti-choice. That’s a depressing situation considering that the Democrats have a huge majority of the seats. Ironically, the Senate, which is more conservative than the House on most issues, is still pro-choice. That’s why Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois could successfully pass an amendment in the Senate Armed Services Committee to allow women to use their own money to pay for abortions in military hospitals (something which is currently banned). However, I doubt the provision will survive a conference with the House.
The Bishops will surely advise all Catholic Democrats that the fate of their soul is connected to their vote, and that the mere act of providing an abortion at a military facility, even when it is fully paid for in private funds, constitutes a government subsidy.
This is the same bill that will contain the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, and it will be a tough fight to pass both of these progressive reforms.
You know what it also shows? The failure of groups like NARAL(and other women-centric organizations). The Unions aren’t the only organization the D.C. Democrats use as an ATM.
The democrats are also anti-labor and anti-environment.
It seems they need to change their party platform (pdf), which says the Democrats are pro-labor and pro-choice:
isn’t that false advertising? Why should I support a party that says it stands for one thing while doing the exact opposite? And how’s that credibility thing doing?
Did you read Greenwald this morning? He makes a point about those in the WH. He also references one of the editorials in today’s NYT. The last sentence of the editorial is:
There are virtues to pragmatism, but it should be in the service of an underlying principle.
Which if anyone didn’t know, Rahm has no underlying principles. He’s basically said so himself. And anytime I bash Rahm it’s exactly because of this.
I honestly don’t think anyone in washington has any principles, as Labor is now finding out (again).
Aren’t both of these attached to the military appropriations bill? Seems like the hard part of the fight is won. All it will take now is for the Dems to hang tough and dare the Reps or turncoat Dems to take away the military’s money. Am I missing something?