Sunday, November 04, 2012

Some Catholics Still Trying to Spin Obama Vote as Pro-Life

A Catholic professor at Creighton University wrote in the Omaha World-Herald's Nov. 3 Public Pulse that Obamacare "allows no public funding for abortion." I have a problem with that assertion.

Senator Ben Nelson explained it very clearly when defending his decisive vote for Obamacare: Citizen has policy that costs $100 a month and $50 of it is subsidized by taxpayers. Citizen wants to add abortion coverage for $5. Citizen must pay the extra $5 for abortion coverage.

That was supposed to satisfy pro-lifers who want to continue the federal policy of not having any taxpayer dollars subsidize abortion. Despite what the left thinks, pro-lifers are not idiots. The professor's assertion fails for the same reason Nelson's argument failed.

Under Obamacare, I would subsidize $50 of a $105 policy that includes abortion coverage. That's not the way it's supposed to work. If you want a policy that includes abortion coverage, you pay for that policy yourself.

Or leave abortion out of the policy and pay for it yourself out-of-pocket. Or get the Buffetts or the Guttmacher Institute or Planned Parenthood to pay for it. I don't want any part of it and federal taxpayer dollars are not supposed to subsidize abortion.

The professor expressed support for Obamacare as "the most significant social advance since Medicare and Medicaid." I disagree. I think we are compounding the disaster begun by Medicare and Medicaid, but reasonable people can disagree on such policy issues.

What I can't stomach is the professor's claim that "President Obama’s approach has the best chance of decreasing the number of abortions performed in the United States." That was the rationalization lefty Catholics used in 2008 to justify voting for the most abortion-friendly candidate America has seen -- which is saying something considering how resolute President Clinton was in championing abortion.

Or did the professor mean that forcing the Catholic Church to subsidize birth control would reduce abortion? It's a classic left-wing argument: we must violate religious liberty to accomplish a greater good. You do want to reduce abortion, right?

Except that like so much of left-wing ideology, theory does not match reality. Aside from the assault on religious liberty, the availability and promotion of birth control has not reduced abortion. Nor have Obama's policies reduced poverty, which also was supposed to reduce abortion.

Obama has incorporated abortion into a national health care plan that has taxpayers subsidizing it. I reject the assertion that this will reduce abortion.

No comments: