Pro-Life Democrats Ousted as Election Centers on the Economy
Anti-abortion groups spent millions against supporters of healthcare reform bill.
Paige Winfield Cunningham in Washington, D.C. | posted 11/03/2010 11:54AM
Abortion issues seemed left in the dust as economic concerns drove this year's election, but on Tuesday voters ousted several pro-life Democrats and ushered in fiscal conservatives who tend to oppose abortion.
As the names of defeated pro-life Democrats flashed across the screen Tuesday night, triumphant cheers erupted at Morton's Steakhouse, where staff and supporters of the Susan B. Anthony List (SBAL) had gathered to watch election returns.
SBAL, which works to elect pro-life women to office, typically supports pro-life members of both parties. But that largely changed this year after most pro-life Democrats voted for the federal healthcare bill that many abortion opponents say allows for federal funding of abortion.
Three of the four Democrats most heavily targeted by SBAL lost their seats, including Reps. Steve Driehaus (Ohio) and Kathy Dahlkemper (Penn.). Overall, 10 of 17 pro-life Democrats who voted for the healthcare bill were defeated on Tuesday, according to SBAL.
The very premise of this report is faulty. The “pro-life” Democrats who were “ousted” were not pro-life. When push came to shove – which in this case means when pro-life came up against doing what the Obama political machine wanted – pro-life took a back seat. (Personal note: I was more than pleased to see my neighbors across the river dump that dupe of Obamaism, Steve Driehaus.)
It is too bad that Paige Cunningham, who wrote the article above, shirked reporting responsibility and hid in the phrase “the federal healthcare bill that many abortion opponents say allows for federal funding of abortion.” Abortion opponents are not the only ones who think that. In fact, it is already being done:
Maryland will join Pennsylvania as the second state to use federal tax dollars to pay for abortions under the new health care law signed by President Barack Obama in March, according to information released by Maryland’s State Health Insurance Plan. (see the whole report here)
Some reporters bothered to look into the healthcare bill to see just how this could take place. (Reporting that goes only to the level of what some group of person thinks or says is very shallow, and far too common today. What some official says about some matter if fine as an introduction. But real reporting would explore not just what someone thinks or says, but whether or not the thing said is true! Is this kind of reporting a tacit bow to the idea that truth, even if it exists, is unknowable?)
So, if you were a pro-life voter, you naturally wanted to see these “sort-of-prolife-except-when-my-party-pushes-me” Democrats booted from Congress.
It would be wonderful if there were a significant contingent of pro-life-no-matter-what Democrats at the national level. Unfortunately, it appears to be the case that the leadership of the Democrats does not truly welcome pro-life people. It also appears that Democrat candidates at the national level are often pro-life, not from core principles, but because they are from constituencies where life is a significant concern.
As in the case of Driehaus of Ohio, the vote on Obamacare simply pointed out the real loyalty of some of these (former) members of Congress – and it was not with the protection of innocent life.