Reader Lori Pieper writes concerning the Health Care Thingie

I can’t understand all the rage, either. Nor can I understand all the gigantic conspiracy theories that are already forming. (“It’s all a ruse! Stupak was in league with Obama and Pelosi all along!”). This kind of the-whole-world-is-against-us mentality leads people to a great deal of foolishness. It also makes them unable to act usefully in political terms. The important thing is not to moan “how could this have happened?” but “What do we do now?”

In regard to Stupak and the EO, a little analysis. It seems to me that the language in the health care bill in regard to abortion was so vague and obfuscatory that there wasn’t any hope of determining exactly what it meant. (In fact, that much was probably deliberate on the part of the Democrats, in order to cofuse people). Everything was going to depend on how it was interpreted in execution.

It’s also clear that the pro-life Democrats didn’t actually have the votoes to defeat the bill. (Even with Stupak and his remaining 8 there would only have been 31 or 32 votes and they needed 37).

President Obama was also aware how unpopular the idea of federal funding for abortion was with the electorate. So that’s how Stupak wrung the last-minute concession of the EO from him in exchange for his vote. In the end 23 Democrats voted against the bill, 19 of them also voted for a resolution to send the bill back to committee and insert the Stupak amendment. A glorious stand, but in itself politically futile, because there was no chance for success. And of course any change would mean sending the bill back to the Senate, which would have shot the amendment down in short order. Stupak did something that may actually bear fruit.

All this may work in our favor, and I don’t know why more pro-lifers don’t see it. They are talking as though the EO is worthless because it is no real substitute for the Stupak Amendment. Sure, it isn’t permanent, it isn’t legislation, and it can be rescinded. It might even be overturned in court.

But it does commit the President formally on paper to executing the provisions of the law in accordance with the Hyde Amendment (see my first point above). For example, he says he will make sure that none of the funds that are appropriated for the Community Health Centers go to pay for abortions. (This in my opinion is a big deal – it’s probably more important to Planned Parenthood than the whole insurance thing. They are always moaning that something like 87% of counties in the U.S. don’t have abortion, and now they will get the expansion of abortion that they want). This is a big deal. We can’t legally prevent all those centers from starting to provide abortions, but if the President holds to what he says, no federal funds will go to paying for them.

Now, Obama is about to go on the road to promote the new law. He will probably talk up the EO and no-federal funding for abortion aspect, because he know’s it will be politically popular to say there won’t be any federal funding of abortion. What is the best thing pro-lifers can do when we attend these gatherings? Scream at him, “Liar! Satan! We know you don’t really mean it?” Or should we say: “Thank you for committing yourself by this EO to what you’ve been promising in this regard. We expect you to act accordingly. If not, you are toast in 2012.”

Now I don’t think this will necessarily succeed. It may make Obama finally realize he is actually responsible to the electorate. Or it might not. In fact, it probably won’t. But it still has a better chance of succeeding than the first course. That one would just give him a chance to write all-prolifers off as unreasoning shrieking harpies.

So which do we want to do? I think it is important for us right now to support this EO, unless Obama doesn’t actually sign it (has he?) or it is immediately overturned. But please, let’s use a little political sense and not simply spew rage and bile. It’s unproductive and now more than ever we need clear heads.

And thank you Mark, as always, for being so sensible.

I was not aware of the specific details of the vote till now. If, as Lori points out, Stupak did not have the votes and so used what clout he had to wring an Executive Order Not to Fund Abortion promise from Obama, then it seems to me that a case could be made that he did what he could to make lemons from lemonade. Of course, I’m highly skeptical that Obama will keep his promise, but that’s hardly Stupak’s fault. And, as Zippy points out, this is still highly problematic since it basically boils down to a lawmaker doing legislative evil that good may come of it. But, if Lori is right–and presuming that Stupak is unfamiliar with Catholic teaching on consequentialism–I can see at least mitigating his guilt due to such ignorance. But that basically using the extreme “charity believeth all things” heuristic for analyzing his actions.

[UPDATE: readers are saying the Stupak *did* have the votes but just caved. If so, then I’m back to being unsurprised that a politician is a man with no principles whose job is to lay down principles that the rest of us have to live by.]

I also agree with Lori that the smart thing for prolifers to do would be to tell Obama “good job on making that promise. Now please keep it” rather than reflexively shouting “You lying devil in human form! We know you won’t keep your promise and we will continue to denounce you no matter what!” However, given the Bringin’ the Crazy tendencies which have prevailed so far in the fever swamps of the Thing that Used to Be Conservatism, I’m also not optimistic that cooler heads will prevail.

Meanwhile, as I survey the damage wrought by the bill, my main question is this. As somebody who has not been able to afford any health insurance and so has opted to have none so as to support our family and meet our bills, how exactly will compelling me to buy extremely expensive insurance help me? Also, will I soon be compelled to buy cars from GM or whatever other giant corporation can convince Caesar to force me to patronize them?