From the Hill:

“More than 40 lawmakers vowed to oppose the final healthcare bill if the House language on abortion is not removed.

Reps. Diana DeGette (Colo.) and Louise Slaughter (N.Y.) led the group of Democrats in writing to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) threatening to withhold support for a final conference report if it strictly prohibits federal funding for abortion services.

“We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law,” reads a draft of the letter. DeGette and Slaughter, who is the chairwoman of the powerful Rules Committee, also wrote President Barack Obama requesting a meeting on the issue next week.”

The pro-abortion Democrats may have two options: a) accept pro-life language prohibiting federal funding of abortions, or b) kill their own health bill.

The difference between the U.S. House and U.S. Senate debate on the Stupak amendment is stark.

The pro-abortion Members of Congress in the House, and pro-abortion groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood, rolled over and did not threaten to derail the bill because Speaker Pelosi asked them to. So they played dead.

Senator McCaskill (D-MO), who is pro-abortion, publicly said she could live with the Stupak amendment. (This link also shows the deep net-roots anger against NARAL and Emily’s List for playing dead and letting Stupak pass at the request of the Speaker.)

Senator McCaskill is not the Speaker of the House, and she was not so lucky — she did not get a free pass.

She was instantly pounded by pro-abortion forces. Senator McCaskill has now changed her tune — she will not support Stupak in the Senate — all in the same day.

Pro-Abortion Forces on the Defensive

The precedent set by the Stupak amendment in the House has put the pro-abortion forces on the defensive. They lost a major battle and are now reacting very aggressively.

They cannot allow a Stupak type amendment to pass the Senate. It will make their position in Conference extremely weak, untenably weak. It will lock-in the pro-life victory in the House.

If the Senate also passes an amendment, close to or like the Stupak amendment, then the bill coming out of Conference would force the pro-abortion groups to oppose the Conference report, and they would have to join with the Republicans to kill ObamaCare.

Like wolves on a fresh killed deer, the liberals keep tearing up Democrats over Representative Stupak’s amendment, which forces pro-abortion Dems to vote for pro-life protections for the innocents.

This has sites like FireDogLake completely bent:

“Is there anyone who did not see this coming, besides the over hundred Democrats in the House who call themselves pro-choice? Ben Nelson (D-NE) is now demanding the Senate also include the Stupak amendment language. Did anyone really think the Senate’s conservative Democrats would let any part of the House bill be to the right of the Senate? If Nelson gets his way (and when hasn’t Nelson gotten his way this year?), so much for “don’t worry, Obama will fix it in conference.”

From Politico,

“Senator Nelson is strongly pro-life and was pleased the Stupak amendment passed with such strong support,” Thompson said in a statement. “He believes that no federal money—including subsidies or tax credits–should be used to buy insurance coverage for abortion. This is a very important issue to Senator Nelson and it is highly unlikely he would support a bill that doesn’t clearly prohibit federal dollars from going to abortion.”

“It is a good thing NARAL and Planned Parenthood did not put up a fight before the Stupak amendment was added to the House bill. It is always so much easier to push things to the left in the Senate. . . .

But NARAL and Planned Parenthood got rolled by Speaker Pelosi, and now pro-abortion Senators will be forced to make the same choice pro-abortion House Dems did, but this time, the NARALs and Planned Parenthoods of the world can’t just roll over and play dead, like they did for their pal the Speaker.

Read More →

First, let me apologize to RedState readers for taking so long to write and post this overdue piece, the time I allocated to write this was the same time the site was down for maintenance over the weekend.

Regardless, my predictions of winning the House floor vote were wrong.

Simply put, the pro-lfe amendment by Rep. Stupak moved enough Dems into the yes category — but the price paid by Speaker Pelosi was to throw the pro-abortion groups under the bus — and there is a new, titanium strong pro-life baseline consensus on public funding or facilitating the killing of innocent babies: the US House is at a !@#&!$&# NO on that.

Had Rep. Stupak’s amendment failed, the House bill would have failed.

No doubt, and the shock of seeing 64 Dem votes for Rep. Stupak’s don’t use public money to kill the innocents was a Maxell moment for both the Democratic and Republican House Leadership. No one predicted that high a Yes Dem vote.

The desperate position the Speaker must have been in to have to accept the Stupak amendment should not be understated. She and her pro-abortion pals understand that Stupak was a huge step down the path of America becoming a pro-life nation. They have imposed upon themselves and their ilk a negative precedent which cannot be undone.

Dropping the Stupak amendment in conference, should the bill pass the Senate, which I doubt — will mean the conference report will fail on the House floor.

Just think of the desperation of the Speaker, to be FORCED to accept this political price. She pivoted on abortion, and decided the Stupak amendment was worth the price to pass the bill.

For the Jamestown Kool-aid brigade of Dems who voted with the Speaker who are from Red States — you will die a hard and agonizing political death of your own making. Whatever rationale you used to vote for this politically and fiscally toxic bill $3 Trillion spending ObamaCare bill — you are wrong and you are TOAST. (Here is the Congressional Budget Office letter on the $3 Trillion in spending number.)

Most Accurate RedStater

One RedStater who was consistent and accurate on the House vote outcome in their comments on my blogs should be “called-out,” to use the President’s term:

Most accurate: bk. I really appreciate (just for the record) those who disagree with my posts and predictions, and am recognizing bk here for his or her insight and accuracy.

In fact, bk, when I wrote the Today’s House Vote, by the Numbers, the implications of the Stupak amendment and deal were simply not part of that post’s calculation, as you immediately both understood and pointed out.

Thank you for all the dissident commentators, as one myself, I appreciate disagreement with my posts.

The Democrats’ health care legislation passed the House of Representatives on Saturday by three votes. Under the Democrats’ plan, should you fail to obtain health insurance, you will go to jail for five years.

Leading up to the vote, pro-lifers engaged in a battle against each other over the “Stupak Amendment” offered by pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak. By Sunday, pro-lifers were suffering numerous recriminations from their allies. The logic is that had Stupak not passed, there would be enough votes to ensure the health care bill did not pass.

While I tend to agree with the argument, I think we miss a central point: Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats would have just done something else to get the legislation passed. By using pro-life issues, however, the Democrats were able to divide the GOP.

As the sun rises this Monday morning, let’s consider a few points.

1. Whether Stupak passed or not, the health care legislation would have passed on Saturday. In fact, most of the Republican leaders on the Hill encouraged a yes vote for the Stupak Amendment because (A) its passage would send a strong message that there is a pro-life majority in the House of Representatives and (B) its passage would not affect the final outcome. Regardless of how you view Stupak, we know now there is a pro-life majority in even this Democratic House of Representatives and Stupak very clearly will not affect the final outcome.

2. We know that this House legislation is dead on arrival in the United States Senate. As a result of its passage, a number of Blue Dog Democrats are now extremely vulnerable to defeat, as are a number of others. The act of voting for the legislation, and the anger generated by it receiving a majority vote, will doom a significant number of Democrats.

3. Because the Stupak Amendment passed, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and a host of power left-wing interest groups that supported Obamacare, now are joined with a bunch of groups on the right in opposition to the measure.

4. Passing Obamacare in the manner it passed Saturday has created fresh, new divisions within the Democratic Party. While the media would prefer to look at Republican divisions, the Democrats are so full of gaping wounds now, they might bleed to death by November of 2010.

I think the Stupak Amendment was an instance of the pro-life community not seeing the forest for the trees and it should have been opposed. But I am willing to admit I could be wrong. What I do know is that the House Republican Leadership has been very, very good at combating the Democrats’ legislative agenda. That House GOP Leadership encouraged a vote for Stupak should not be second guessed lightly. It is a lot easier for me to Monday morning quarterback the vote than it was for these men and women on the front lines to make a decision.

At the end of the day we need to trust the people who said a yes vote was worth casting. Now is also not the time to throw the pro-lifers under the bus. They stand with us and, because of their tough stance, we are now ironically joined by pro-abortion groups standing shoulder to shoulder with pro-life groups in opposition to Obamacare.

Life is fully of ironies. Let’s savor this one and fight on.

From the diaries by Erick.

Is Carly Fiorina pro-life? The question has come to the fore of late, as she publicly contemplates a candidacy for United States Senate against Barbara Boxer — and as her opponent for the California Republicans’ nomination in that race, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, has publicly questioned her pro-life credentials. (Full disclosure: I’m a member of the DeVore campaign, so read the following with Reagan’s appropriated Russian dictum to “trust, but verify,” in mind.) An examination of the Fiorina record on this topic reveals worrying inconsistencies.

Any review of Fiorina’s pro-life convictions must acknowledge that for the past 20 months, when pressed on the issue, she has declared herself “pro-life.” This is laudable, and as it should be: the Republican Party is the natural political home for the majority of Americans who do not believe in the Democratic agenda of unrestricted abortion-on-demand, and so it makes sense that a would-be Republican nominee for office would endorse that point of view.

Unfortunately, it is all too easy to question the depth of Fiorina’s commitment to the pro-life cause. These questions range from the legitimate to the ungenerous. Among the latter would be noting, as many have, that Fiorina never uttered a public word on the topic, nor lent any support to pro-life activism, before embarking upon her political career. Indeed, pre-2008 media reports on Fiorina almost uniformly describe her as “pro-choice” — for example, this 2004 San Jose Mercury-News piece, in which “Republican insiders said Fiorina [is] moderate and pro-choice.” Like the father welcoming the prodigal son, we should laud the turn to what’s right. We should also note what it signifies: if Carly Fiorina says she is pro-life now, that is at minimum evidence of a California Republican base that embraces a conservativism and compassion that do it profound credit.

Read More →

MediaCurves did a survey of television ads on Obamacare, and determined that the most effective anti-Obamacare ad is this one.

Here are some of the MediaCurve study results about this ad:

“A majority of all parties believe FRC anti-reform ad is effective….

A positive impact score among Democrats suggests that there is some, albeit modest, movement of Democrats away from the pro health care reform camp,” commented Glenn Kessler, president and CEO, HCD Research.

The majority of all parties reported that the FRC anti reform ad was effective, with 64% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans and 71% of Independents indicating that the ad was either extremely effective or somewhat effective. The top three emotions felt by Democrats while viewing the ad included “anger” (26%), “skepticism” (24%) and “disturbing” (20%). Republicans’ top emotions were “anger” (34%), “sadness” (22%) and “disturbing” (20%) and Independents top emotions were “anger” (28%), “disturbing” (26%) and “skepticism” (23%) while viewing the FRC ad.

And for those of you wondering at the power of the abortion/pro-life issue in this Obamacare debate: no other issue has as many NO Democratic votes as does putting abortion in the Obamacare bill.

According to the leading pro-life Democrat, there are 40 Democratic NO votes if taxpayer funded abortion remains in the Obamacare bills in the House and the Senate versions. And given the Democrats overwhelming support for abortion, there is no reason to assume that the Democrats will take abortion out of the bill.

In fact, there have been amendments offered in every House and Senate Committee that has considered the Obamacare bill, and every amendment to prohibit abortion as a benefit failed, in fact, one amendment on the House side guarantees that every American will have a choice of a plan with abortion coverage.

Ohio Right to Life released a new poll which they describe as the Ohio Cultural Index.  The index’s significant findings include:

• 72% of Ohioans’ surveyed strongly believe in God;
• 60% oppose abortion;
• 54% believe abortion has a negative effect on women who have them;
• 70% oppose use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion;
• 45% believe entertainment today negatively impacts families;
• 51% believe government policies are harming traditional family values;
• 54% believe schools undermine values taught at home; and
• 54% believe families do a worse job of developing character than a generation ago.

Some pretty interesting results:

The score indicates Ohioans are generally center-right in their social outlook, and hold an overall positive view of the state’s culture. However, on seven of the 10 questions, Ohioans have a more negative than positive perception. “Ohioans’ belief in God, their belief that tax dollars should not be used to pay for abortions, and their belief that abortions have a negative effect on the women who have them pushed the index above the ‘break-even’ mark of 50,” said Fritz Wenzel, president of Wenzel Strategies and a former pollster with Zogby International.

You can dig into the findings here (PDF).

President Barack Obama made the commencement address today at the University of Norte Dame.  The university’s invitation, and the president’s appearance, have been the subject of much controversy both inside the Church and in the pro-life community.  President Obama, in four short months, has established himself as the most radically pro-abortion president in U.S. history, and many in the Catholic Church - including a large contingent of bishops - have been critical of Notre Dame for giving the president a platform and bestowing upon him an honorary law degree.

But President Obama’s decision to accept the invitation, and to keep it in the face of the growing controversy, is worthy of examination as well. President Obama may not have thought that his acceptance of the invitation to speak at Notre Dame would be controversial when he confirmed it.  However, as the controversy surrounding the speech grew from an online petition drive to angry comments from the Vatican, President Obama should have realized that his presence at the school on graduation day had become a distraction for the graduates and their families, and placed his host in an awkward situation.  As a guest has an obligation to avoid placing his host in embarrassing circumstances, President Obama should have found a way to gracefully extricate himself from the speech.  That he did not is evidence of a fundamental lack of decency in the President of the United States.

Read More →

Promoted by Jeff. Click here to Digg this excellent post.

The newly released Gallup poll finding 51% percent of Americans considering themselves “pro-life” and 42% considering themselves “pro-choice” demonstrates a significant change in the electorate on this hot button issue.

This is great news for people who believe in the sanctity of life over personal convenience. Many of us who have been active in the pro-life movement have focused on just this thing, that is changing the hearts and minds of Americans.

The countless crisis pregnancy centers across the nation are doing that every day. As someone who worked for such a center for over 5 years, I can tell you that on a grassroots level, pro-life activists in these centers have been successful at changing hearts and minds one at a time for years. One by one, the eyes of young women have been opened to the sanctity of life and the dignity and value that each life has. The use of technology has also made this argument easier to make.

Young women can come into these centers and see their baby on an ultrasound (something denied them even if requested in Planned Parenthood.) And make no mistake, there is a reason that the abortion-for-profit centers run by Planned Parenthood and their allies in the abortion industry deny this option to their girls. Statistically somewhere north of 80% will choose life if they see their child on an ultrasound. Put simply, if given all of the facts, more and more women are choosing life for their unplanned or inconvenient pregnancies.

Read More →

The Obama Administration will announce next week that President Obama has decided to scrap regulations put in place by President Bush designed to protect health care workers from being forced to participate in abortions, sterilizations, and contraceptive procedures on moral grounds.  The rules were intended as an enforcement mechanism.  They expanded on existing federal law protecting conscientious doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care workers by requiring hospitals to certify that they comply with the law in order to continue to be eligible for federal funding.  In other words, the rules did nothing new, they simply ensured that the existing law was not ignored.

There can be no doubt now that Barack Obama is the most radically pro-abortion president in history, except among the most brain-addled and delusional fever swamps of the left.  This move, together with Obama’s history and two other abortion related decisions in his young Administration proves it.  I used the term “pro-abortion” in my story on the abortion rules at AOL’s Political Machine and drew the ire of one liberal commenter, who called it, “symantics gymnastics.”  But why?  Liberals believe abortion is a good thing.  If Obama is pro-abortion, that just means he is on their side.

Furthermore, the left likes to have its positions characterized in a positive light and conservative ones cast negatively.  Hence the labels “pro-choice” and “anti-choice.”  Since we all know choice equals abortion – it’s the only choice the left supports – let’s have truth in labeling.  President Obama is pro-abortion while his conservative opponents are anti-abortion. Works for me.

Read More →

But, of course, NBC won’t say it during the Super Bowl.

This has to be one of the very best pro-life spots I’ve ever seen. And just WHY won’t NBC air it? Well, from LifeNews.com…

Read More →

Let the record show that I say the following without heat: I don’t think that I’ve ever met Robert Stein, and I certainly have nothing against him. But this plaintive question via (Hot Air) is a bit rich:

In Illinois, the future felon Rod Blagojevich appoints Roland Burris amid calls to retain the President’s seat for an African-American and now, with Caroline Kennedy gone, New York’s governor speaks publicly and privately about “the importance of selecting a woman to replace Mrs. Clinton.”

With the critical questions facing the Senate, when and how did substantive qualifications fall behind demographics in making choices for such high office?

The answer is “January of 2007,” which is of course the point where the Democratic Party took control of Congress. To evoke Fred Thompson / Admiral Painter, those guys don’t take a dump without reading a poll first.

Case in point:

Barack Obama Postpones Decision to Send Tax Dollars Overseas for Abortion

Read More →