“Pro-life” Harry Reid backs government-funded abortions
posted at 3:32 pm on March 27, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Harry Reid has insisted for years that he supports the pro-life cause in the Senate, despite his role as a Democratic Party leader. He has provided votes to prohibit federal funding of abortions, most recently in February 2008, along with eight other Democratic Senators. However, John McCormack of The Weekly Standard reports that Reid may have shifted — and significantly — towards the pro-abortion lobby. In a breakfast meeting sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, Reid reversed himself:
TWS: Senator, progressive Rev. Jim Wallis recently said that including abortion provisions in health care reform would kill health care reform. One, do you agree with that assessment? And, two, will you vote for a health care bill that covers abortion?
Senator Reid: Does what with abortion?
TWS: Covered it–provided insurance coverage for abortion.
Senator Reid: Well, first of all abortion is an important issue, very emotional issue, but we have to recognize that unintended pregnancies is where we should focus our attention. Unintended pregnancies wind up–half of them wind up in abortions, so everything we can do to limit the number of unintended pregnancies helps with the number of abortions. I think that it’s very obvious we don’t do enough in that regard. I’ve worked–I don’t want to boast, but I think I’ve been the leader if not one of the leaders in promoting legislation dealing with contraceptives. Hillary Clinton was a tremendous asset in that regard, and it’s kind of unusual with someone with my standing about abortion to be awarded in Nevada a legislative year award by Planned Parenthood. So I think I’m heading in the right direction.
Since the soliloquy above appeared non-responsive, John asked the question again:
Reid didn’t answer the question directly, so after the meeting concluded, THE WEEKLY STANDARD asked him again if he could support a national health care bill that provided coverage for abortion. “I could,” Reid replied.
Read all of John’s post to find out how Reid’s office reacted to John’s question, and especially to the answer Reid provided. Needless to say, they refused to comment on the substance of Reid’s answer, and instead tried insulting John. Great strategy, folks!
It’s not just difficult to describe one’s self as pro-life while voting to provide federal funding for abortions; it’s entirely contradictory. One cannot be “pro-life” while funding the destruction of human children in the womb. It’s the same as insisting that one is frequently celibate. Even some pro-choice advocates don’t want tax dollars paying for abortions, and abortion opponents see such funding as cooperation with a great, intrinsic evil.
This points out, though, the crisis that will come with a nationalized health-care system. People who advocate for such a system will have a difficult time rationalizing the exclusion of abortion. The Obama plan will almost certainly override the Hyde Amendment, despite Obama’s promises to respect it. Harry Reid apparently understands this and has already rearranged his “pro-life” values accordingly.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
correction-
social spending grew faster under Bush than under Clinton
Bet most Americans were ignorant of this FACT.
Jamson64 on March 28, 2009 at 7:55 PM
I think that many Republican voters are painfully aware of this fact. It is the single largest reason that Republicans have lost their base. When the Republicans started acting like Democrats then you do not leave us any reason to not vote for a Democrat. I don’t want Democrat Lite, I want a real alternative. A conservative alternative.
Now would you care to go further and discuss the spending by Obama thus far?
Hawthorne on March 29, 2009 at 3:01 AM
The problem that anti-abortionists like Ed cannot grasp is that they are morally correct and practically wrong. Abortion is a very bad thing indeed. And perhaps funding it federally is a bad thing indeed. But where do they want to go? Many want to ban it outright and make it illegal.
This has been tried before and the results are there for those who care to look. It doesn’t lower the rate of abortions – it lowers the ‘reported’ rate and drives up backstreet illegal abortions with all the nastiness that implies.
Last time I checked 9/10 American catholics believe in and practice contraception, which is abortion by another name. This kind of hypocrisy is almost only the preserve of Rome.
Get over it.
Ares on March 29, 2009 at 4:23 PM
True Mental Illness if you cannot distinguish the difference.
Jumping from the WTC was either learning to fly or suicide, right?
lasertex on March 29, 2009 at 5:22 PM
State school must be on spring break.
lasertex on March 29, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Last time I checked that was the Vatican’s take, dimwit.
Ares on March 29, 2009 at 5:35 PM
You on spring break?
lasertex on March 29, 2009 at 5:37 PM
And what was their take on the pedophile priests they shopped around to parishioners? I guess THEY didn’t use contraception. dumbass
lasertex on March 29, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Their take was cover-up, as always.
Honestly, moralizing from such a degenerate organization is pure chutzpah.
http://bsalert.com/news/1418/Pope_Caught_Orchestrating_Church_Pedophile_Cover_Up.html
Ares on March 29, 2009 at 5:51 PM
I agree and take back the dumbass thing. Are you on spring break? HeHe.
lasertex on March 29, 2009 at 6:02 PM
Are you insane? What the hell was that? Tell me honestly what kind of education you have. I was reading that and wasn’t sure if you were kidding or you’re really that ignorant.
radiofreevillage on March 29, 2009 at 8:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4