The pesky thing about abortion for pro-choice stalwarts is that when it comes to the will of the people through their legislatures, they often lose more battles than when the voters in question are black-robed judges in a courtroom.
Just ask Newsweek's Eleanor Clift, who is bummed about the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and its effect on the Democrats' hopes for a health care reform bill that puts in place a government-run health care "option" (emphasis mine):
When health-care reform passed the House by just two votes late Saturday night, I assumed Speaker Nancy Pelosi had several more votes in her pocket from Blue Dogs who would be there if she needed them. After all, that's how Washington works. I also figured I shouldn't get too worked up about the restrictive amendment on abortion that was added at the last minute because it would be stripped from the legislation when it went to conference and was merged with the Senate bill.
It took just a little reporting for me to discover how wrong my initial assessments were.... [D]itching the amendment advanced by pro-life Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak is unlikely.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓The prospect of a Democratic Congress curtailing reproductive rights as a price for health-care reform is yet another reality check for those of us who thought Democratic control of Congress and the White House heralded a new day for progressive policies. We have won the battle for women on right-to-choose in the courts," Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Chris Van Holland told NEWSWEEK. "We've never won this in Congress. It's a mistake to say that now Democrats are in charge, it's different. If we ever had a vote up or down on Roe v. Wade, my best guess is that it might be defeated."
For Clift, the very existence of a sizable pro-life minority in the Democratic caucus is proof that "Both Parties Abandon[ed] Women's Rights," although she predictably concludes that Republicans are "even worse" and hints that pro-life Democrats might stoke anti-incumbent ire at the polls in the 2010 midterms:
Democrats didn't fare well this past week when it came to female-friendly policies, but Republicans looked even worse.
[...]
Voters on both sides of the abortion divide are more ambivalent in their views than the activists who profess to represent them. With both parties guilty of voter malpractice, the result is widespread anti-incumbent sentiment. Two thirds of Americans in the latest Pew Research survey say they are dissatisfied with the course of the country. They will be even more unhappy if health-care reform is taken hostage by abortion activists.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I see the irony of all
November 13, 2009 - 19:04 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonI see the irony of all this.
On one side we have the "Pro Life" democrats.
On the other side?
The PRO DEATH democrats.
"no matter how low you set the bar, liberals can never quite measure up." -Me
http://gjresult.com
Isn't Eleanor Clift up for
November 13, 2009 - 19:12 ET by Chris NormanIsn't Eleanor Clift next up for Helen Thomas' pair of ruby slippers when, sooner or later, someone splashes water on Thomas?
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
I was thinking kind of the
November 13, 2009 - 19:35 ET by rockyracoonI was thinking kind of the same thing. In our house we always refer to Eleanor as the "Eleanor the addle brained lib."
Facts are like kryptonite to the liberal.
Eleanor Clift's radical position on abortion...
November 13, 2009 - 19:13 ET by Gary HallWhat Eleanor Clift (as well as most of the MSM) does not seem to understand is that it is they that are standing way out in left field, with the radicals.
Clift needs to not only learn how to read, but also to comprehend.
(;~/ gary
well of course
November 13, 2009 - 20:03 ET by michiganruthhey, I'm pro-choice and even I don't support federal funding of abortion! but to the LSM, any deviation from "free abortions for all on demand!" means you're a right-wing misogynistic bigot who hates women.
Yeah, it's pretty simple.
November 13, 2009 - 20:44 ET by Ken ShepherdYeah, it's pretty simple. Just because you have a right to do something without government interference, doesn't mean you have a right to have others pay for it.
Not providing money
November 13, 2009 - 22:06 ET by EdhenryNot providing money to child murderers is "restricitve"
Next we need to provide guns to bank robbers and the alarm code to buglers.
The government disagrees
November 13, 2009 - 23:36 ET by Dan The Man 2The government disagrees with you.
I am definately
November 13, 2009 - 22:57 ET by toneyukiI am definately pro-life.
Having said that, I dont beleive that it should be illegal. But it should be restricted, ie no late term abortions. definately no federal funding. Also it should be up to the individual states to make all the laws pertaining to it.
The doctors that do unnesasary proceders for money work at planned parenthood for about $400 a pop.
I left the Republican party because the Republic party went to the LEFT of me.
Karate Chop Clift
November 13, 2009 - 22:19 ET by chuckkOne of the reasons the McLaughlin Group has become completely unwatchable over the past few years is the assumption by the host that Eleanor has anything interesting or original to say.
She always gives her first comment cogently and calmly, then immediately loses all self control.
Her eyes narrow, lips tighten and she starts doing karate chops in the air as she screams the phrase "EXCUSE ME!" about 20 times per show, as if her "insight" is so crucial that everyone else must cease speaking so she can give her DNC talking point.
sad
November 14, 2009 - 01:43 ET by m1xramIt sure is sad to think where we would be without more child murderers in this world. Think of all those poor kids that would have lived.
Actually I'd be fine with pro-choice position if they gave it to the children. Ask them when they are eight years old if they would like to be sliced up and put in a dumpster.
He has already failed... his country.