How the Game is Played

The generally accepted understanding is that the word “healthcare” relates to the prevention and/or treatment of illness, injury and disease.  Of course, pregnancy is none of those.  Beyond that, according to the abortion industry’s own statistics, almost every elective abortion in America is done for a non-medical reason on a healthy baby and a healthy mother whose pregnancy poses no threat to her physical well-being. 


What all this means is that, by definition, abortion cannot logically be considered healthcare.  But despite this, and despite the abortion lobby’s oft-repeated chant that abortion is none of the government’s business, they want the government to pay for them.  Somehow, the “right to choose” mysteriously evaporates when it comes to buying abortions for other people.


This is now one of the issues holding up the passage of a government-run healthcare bill.  On one hand, the Obamanistas insist that their plan will not fund abortion.  But on the other hand, they continue to oppose any amendment that would expressly prohibit it.  Obviously, they understand that if the final legislation does not specifically prohibit abortion funding, it tacitly allows it.   


However, I have come to suspect that something else is afoot here.  I think the Obamanistas are not the least bit worried about a prohibition against abortion funding being written into this legislation.  Instead, what they are doing is holding this issue back as a future bargaining chip. 


It is clear that their efforts to nationalize the American healthcare system is in deep trouble.  Moreover, with each passing day, they are looking more and more strident as they toy with the idea of unilaterally ramming it through behind closed doors.  This is often referred to as the “Nuclear Option.” 


The problem is, in order for it to succeed, the Democrats would have to be united and it is increasingly apparent that no such unity exists.  Today, Democrats who are opposed to government-funded abortion are in open revolt and they are starting to be joined by those who are nervous about the next election cycle.  For this second group, the fear is that the sort of bullying being contemplated by the Obama administration will not sit well with a public who has never really been sold on the idea of turning their medical future over to the same nitwits who run the post office. 


Given this environment, it could be that Comrades Obama, Reid and Pelosi are waiting for the right moment to offer a “compromise” in which they agree to a written exemption for abortion funding in exchange for support of the overall plan.  This would lure the “anti-funding” Democrats back onto the reservation while reducing the fears of those concerned about re-election.  After all, this new willingness to compromise would blunt the “bullying” perception.  


What the public doesn’t realize, but the Obamanistas do realize, is that this is not a compromise at all.  For the last 50 years, America’s godless Left has counted on the federal courts to do whatever they could not get done in the legislative process.  In fact, that is precisely how abortion became legal in the first place.  What they are now counting on is that, even if they agree to include a prohibition against funding abortion, the courts will remove it.  They will rule it unconstitutional on the basis that abortion is a legal medical procedure and not paying for it would be discrimination against women. 


Mark my words.  If Obama Care passes with an abortion-funding exclusion, not only will that provision be immediately challenged in the courts, but the legal mechanism to do so is being formulated right now with the help of the Obama administration.  The reality is, the only way abortion will not be covered under Obama Care is if Obama Care is never passed.    


Now for the good news. 


Under current proposals, even if Obama Care is passed, it is not scheduled to be implemented until 2013.  That gives the Republicans two enormous opportunities.  First, they can make this the centerpiece of their 2012 House, Senate and Presidential races.  The theme should be: “Elect us and we will repeal this nightmare before it begins.” 


Second, the Republicans should be pointing out that when the Democrats locked them out of the process, they also locked out every voter in the districts with Republican representatives.  Think about it.  As it now stands, anyone who lives in a congressional district held by a Republican, or in a state with Republican senators, is completely unrepresented in one of the most important political events in the history of our country.  Anyway you cut it, a large percentage of the American citizenry currently has no voice in a political debate that will determine both their physical and their financial futures.        


If the GOP will hammer those two points home, the fact that a majority of American voters do not want socialized medicine – a fact which the Obamanistas are so comfortable ignoring today – will be quite relevant in 2012.

Comments (Comment Moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until approved.)

Abortion is PREVENTATIVE health care. Like stopping smoking. Or, taking insulin if you're diabetic (prevents amputations). Or, using a walker if you have impaired balance.
# Posted By OperationCounterstrike | 11/6/09 7:27 PM
In the past couple of days I received two emails from pro-life groups calling Saturday's vote on Healthcare a victory for pro-lifers.
Although pro-lifers say they have a victory,no doubt it will be challenged and given the current make up of the legislatures/courts I am not convinced the victory will be permanent.

For many reasons we need less government involved with healthcare. Not more,especially because we have a government, who does not value the sanctity of human life
and does not provide equal protection for the unborn.

I am very disappointed that the House passed the healthcare bill and I am worried that if pro-life people get too ecstatic about it, they will be sending the green light to the Senate to pass it...only to be very disappointed later.
A better strategy would be to outright defeat the bill.
# Posted By Mary | 11/9/09 6:45 PM
What are you preventing again? What disease, illness, or injury? The abortionist NEVER called me back when I did not show up for my two week follow-up to insure the uterus was empty. No one called me back. No nurse. No doctor. I have just been released from a mental health facility b/c of my preventative care-measure I was given the right to choose. Six years later, my suicide attempt failed. You are do horribly wrong.
Abortion hurts women. All women.
# Posted By Citizen | 11/10/09 9:35 PM
Abortion is "PREVENTIVE" health care, Operation Counter-commonsense?

It does prevent a human being from being born alive. I'll give you that much. But it ain't health care. Whose health, exactly, is being cared for? Not the baby's, that's for sure. A person dies. By the hands of a medical doctor. What, exactly, is the "health" part and what is the "care" part of that?

Since "health care" ALWAYS relates to the prevention and/or treatment of illness, disease, or injury (even in research applications), exactly how does sucking a growing baby out of a uterus automatically qualify?

Your silly tactic of dehumanizing abortion by comparing it to taking insulin, stopping smoking, or using a walker to improve ambulation and decreasing fall risk is a favorite of pro-aborts who equivocate in their efforts to make abortion sound like some innocuous thing.

If you want to advocate abortion, hey, shake a leg. But don't dumb yourself down by using Swiss cheese logic.

Health care is what mothers seek when they want to keep the baby. That would be called "prenatal care." Killing the unborn, the opposite, can't be the same thing. THAT would be called "prenatal I DON'T care."
# Posted By Ron | 11/13/09 9:45 PM

Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics