As we've seen, the healthcare debate and the battle to pass the reform bill has been made even more complicated by the injection of a perhaps another controversial issue, abortion, into the process. And pro-lifers, Democrats and Republicans alike, have threatened opposition over the bill's abortion provisions. However, now that it looks like the EO compromise with the Stupak Bloc will ensure passage, meaning that a decent number of pro-life Democrats will now vote for healthcare. Some more will vote against, but I think they have generally pragmatic reasons for doing so. So instead, our problem should be with the Republicans and the Religious Right organizations that continue to oppose the bill supposedly because the Executive Order compromise still isn't enough. Our question to them should be this- "how is the status quo on healthcare pro-life?"
For years now, pro-choice Democrats have complained of the hypocricy of the GOP and some conservative Dems on abortion (and stem cells and euthanasia). First of all, it's hard to argue that preventing life-saving research using material that would otherwise be discarded is pro-life, or how causing women to undergo risky backalley procedures is pro-life. But even if you agree with their agruments on these three issues, conservatives tend to believe that this is all there is to being "pro-life"; never mind their contrary stances on poverty, inequality, gun violence, the death penalty, torture, human rights and excessive militarism. There are even pro-life Democrats (notably Martin Sheen and Marcy Kaptur) who embrace the Democratic Party in spite of their disagreement with the party on abortion, stem cells and euthanasia, because they believe that these issues aside, to be a progressive Democrat brings you closer to "the consistent life ethic" than mainstream conservatism does.
Personally, I'm a strong supporter of abortion rights, though I do take a pragmatically pro-choice "safe, legal, rare" position. I also know that I will never be able to fully understand the personal convictions of someone who cannot bring themselves to a pragmatic stance, and instead believe that abortion is murder and must be banned outright. I may say "agree to disagree" to them, but I can never claim to understand how they feel. But I don't hate them, or assume their intent is bad. And while I may not agree with manoueveres of Bart Stupak on this issue, he has proven that his intent was good, that he wanted to find a way to support healthcare reform. Either based on their personal opposition to abortion or on that of their constituents, moderate pro-life Democrats feel that have had to extract these concessions. Some are in traditionally Republican districts, others represent districts that may be D+ in their PVI, but are nevertheless made up of blue collar, social conservative "Reagan Democrats". Democrats lose millions of votes and who knows how many elections because of Republican pro-life single-issue voters, so pro-life Democrats (both in elected office and the electorate at large) should be commended for their willingness to look past this issue and join the Democratic big tent. Some congressional Democrats will still have to vote against, because of the intensity of opposition to both the EO comprimise and the substance of the bill overall they will find in their districts; indeed, a few of these Democrats are even pro-choice (Chet Edwards, for example). They too will be doing the best thing for their party, I think, as there is little sense in asking Democrats in heavily Republican districts to sacrifice themselves, unless their vote is absolutely needed. But even many of these Democrats probably know that the bill will do good, even if they are unable to publically support it because of their political circumstances.
Like many pro-choicers, I think that the best thing to do is to swallow the pro-life measures added to the healthcare bill for the greater good, as it will let pro-life Democrats find a way to support this bill and give many of them political cover. Democrats can now put the abortion dispute on healthcare behind them, and start making a full-throated defense of the healthcare bill and all it will do. And when the Republicans attack Democrats based on the supposed laxity of the abortion provisions, I'd like to see every Democrat who voted for it, pro-choice or pro-life, stand up and whack them for their hypocricy- "how is the status quo on healthcare pro-life?"
When "pro-life" Republicans raise this point, they are serving themselves up on a platter. They are demonstrating in one breath the contradicition in their position. Almost all congressional Democrats, pro-choice and pro-life, will have voted for a bill that will prevent most of the 45,000 deaths per year caused by the lack of universal healthcare coverage in the US, a problem that no other industrialized nation has. Pro-lifers think a fetus is a human being; pro-choice Dems either disagree or think that abortion still has to be legal even if it is. But pro-life Dems fought for the best abortion rules they could, and pro-choice Democrats ultimately agreed to most of their demands. This compromise was struck for one simple reason; they may not agree about the personhood of a fetus, and probably never will, but the personhood of those 45,000 is indisputable. Millions more will suffer physical pain or economic hardship, even if they do not die. And miscarriages will occur due to inadequate access to medical treatment for poor pregnant women. "How is the status quo pro-life?"- it isn't, but the new order will be, even if you're still troubled by legal abortion.
If pro-life Dems in tough districts want to justify their votes, that argument is how they need to do it. Republicans and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops are already attacking the EO compromise. The National Right to Life Coalition may join in. It's difficult to explain the intransigence of the Bishops, as other Catholic groups have been willing to endorse the bill, but with the GOP it's easy to see; they hate the entire bill, and they honestly prefer the status quo. They don't care about human life from "birth to natural death", no matter how often they may claim they do. Even with NRLC the same is arguably true; just like the NRA, they're officially non-partisan and they sometimes endorse Democrats, but more often than not they carry water for the right. In 2007, pro-life Democrats called out the NRLC for their stance on S-CHIP, so pro-life Dems have been willing to make this argument before. And I'd like to see pro-Democrats standing with them when they do. Abortion is not a simple issue, within the Democratic Party or beyond it. But Democrats have found a way to be nuanced and work around their differences, and in doing so, they will help millions. And the Republicans will have fought it every step of the way.