CBS News confirms the Judas of health care will be holding a press conference at 12:30 to announce his retirement:
Stupak negotiated with Democratic leaders down to the eleventh hour for stricter abortion language in the health care bill, but he ultimately voted for it after President Obama agreed to sign an executive order assuring the new laws will keep taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.
That prompted the conservative Tea Party Express to launch a $250,000 ad campaign against Stupak this week. The group also scheduled a handful of stops on its bus tour in Stupak's district.
On the left, the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America has been working to defeat Stupak and instead elect his Democratic primary challenger Connie Saltonstall.
MSNBC's Chuck Todd reported Democrats considered this a positive as they had anticipated losing 3 or 4 over the break to retirement. My head is still spinning from that one. I thought health care was going to save them after it passed, why would anyone retire? I wonder if Stupak took the offer of $700,000 from the Tea Party Express to retire. There was nothing left to sell out but his seat so why not collect his silver and run.
Democratic sources in Washington and Michigan say they fear losing Stupak, a historically popular Democrat in a sprawling conservative district, will mean likely losing his seat to the Republicans.
According to one Democratic source familiar with his plans, Stupak is expected to make the case that he is leaving because he has accomplished what he went to Washington in 1992 to do - pass health care reform.
He will also say he considered retiring several times in the past.
Responding to news of the retirement, National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Ken Spain said: “After selling his soul to Nancy Pelosi, it appears that Bart Stupak finally found the courage to tell her no. The political fallout over the Democrats’ government takeover of healthcare has put the political careers of many Democrats in jeopardy thanks in-part to Stupak’s decision to abandon his alleged pro-life principles. Unfortunately for Pelosi, she was unable to strong-arm Stupak one last time as she becomes increasingly aware of the fact that her hold on the Speaker’s gavel is loosening by the day.”
Both Pelosi and Obama reportedly urged Stupak to stay in the race, which explains the reference to finding the courage to tell Pelosi no. No doubt Democrats fear losing this seat which was considered safe prior to Stupak's vote. There can be no argument there is room in the Democratic party for pro-life moderate candidates. Stupak's district is made up of socially conservative working class people who would have been open to the populist Democratic message. Ed Morrissey predicts the vote will now be a referendum on Pelosi while the left is hoping that a top tier candidate to replace Stupak might save the seat. No one could possibly believe a moderate Democrat won't do exactly as Stupak did.
From Fox News Sunday, Debbie Wasserman Schultz attempts to argue with Paul Ryan over the Catholic Church of all things, oy vey! Then to make matters worse Wasserman-Schultz argues over deficit reduction with Ryan - game, set, match. If the Democrats do succeed in passing this travesty be prepared for Americans to suddenly become very very familiar with the contents of the chart Paul Ryan uses in this video.
Breaking Stupak Voting Yes? - Game over if true - Stupak denying this Baird switches vote according to Fox - The Dems must have twisted enough arms to get their votes. Pelosi carrying gavel used by John Dingell to pass Medicare. Fitting to pass the entitlement that will bankrupt the US.
The Hill reports conflicting accounts of where the vote stands right now:
In a sign of some uncertainty, though, heading into the vote, one of Democrats' chief deputy whips said Sunday that they may not have a hard head count with enough votes at this point.
"We don’t have a hard 216 right now," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday."
She did express confidence that Dems would hit the number, adding, "I firmly believe we will have 216."
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told NBC’s "Meet the Press" that “there are still members who are looking at it and making up their mind, but we still think there are going to be 216-plus votes when we call the roll.”
It will all come down to Stupak who claims he has 8 currently in his block. He was scheduled to hold a press conference at Noon which was cancelled. Who knows where they are exactly, but Dan Perrin claims to have sources on both sides saying they do not have the votes.
The reality of this or any other text, though is: It is meaningless legally. It has no binding effect. I don't know a single lawyer with a working knowledge of the Constitution, Congress, and the Executive, who says otherwise.
Will update this post with news as it happens. Check our group blog Potluck for news as well.
That Rep. Brad Ellsworth would be walking the plank for ObamaCare could mean one of two things. Either the desperate Dems were short votes or were there with no room to spare. As Ellsworth is Congressman from Indiana running to fill Evan Bayh's Senate seat, it seems unlikely a vote for ObamaCare would do much to spur his election chances along. The subsequent announcement Rep Harry Teague (NM) would vote no, makes clear the Democrats were not flush with yes votes with room to spare as they would have us believe. Though Teague faces a tough re-election, given the choice between losing a seat in the House vs a seat in the House and the Senate, Teague's seat seems more expendable.
Clearly, Pelosi was up against a wall. Hence we have the news she struck a deal with Bart Stupak to have a vote on his amendment in a tie-car legislation co-sponsored by Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Joseph Cao, Kathy Dahlkemper, Steve Driehaus, Marcy Kaptur, Dan Lipinski, Alan Mollohan, and Nick Rahall. The co-sponsors appear to be previous yes votes who were members of Stupak's block. Cao, the lone Republican remains a committed no vote but the remaining 8 have voted yes previously and are in far better positions than someone like Ellsworth to cast a vote for the bill now.
Yet another reason to suspect Pelosi needed those Stupak votes was the chaos that followed the assorted leaks spreading the news of the potential vote on Stupak's Concurrent Resolution amending abortion language. Jane Hamsher writes:
Pro-choice members of the House, however, are demanding that the vote on the Concurrent Resolution happen before the House confirms the Senate bill. If in fact it passes, they plan to vote against confirming the Senate bill. They want Rep. Diana Degette to release the names of the 41 cosigners to her letter who pledged to vote against any bill that restricts a woman’s right to choose, and they are angry that the White House has been whipping to push through the Stupak deal.
“It is outrageous that a Democratic Speaker, a Democratic Majority Leader and a Democratic President should support rolling back women’s reproductive rights,” says one member of the group.
It seems most unlikely Pelosi invited this chaos merely to have extra votes for show. If Pelosi had her votes, they'd be voting as has been said many times. Allahpundit thinks Pelosi might be looking to have spare votes so she can set a few serious plank walkers free. Anyone who switches from a yes to a no at this point has already declared their allegiance to party first. It is not beyond Democrats, however, to think no one will notice this nonsense so anything is possible.
Stupak seems to think he has a viable strategy and the votes to pass a Concurrent Resolution on abortion in the House and Senate. This should be treated with some skepticism, but Pelosi appears willing to give him the vote. The good news, the progressives led by Rep. Diana Degette are demanding the vote take place prior to the vote on reconciliation that will deem the Senate bill into law. Degette claims to have the votes to prevent passage of the reconciliation bill should Stupak's bill pass. Stupak, however, claims he is confident he has the votes to pass his Concurrent Resolution after the reconciliation vote takes place. Personally, if Stupak's vote has the progressive women in this much of an uproar, by all means demand Stupak's vote goes first. Let the internal Dem squabbling implode this bill to smithereens. Stupak is giving a press conference at 11 AM, we'll soon find out how this plays out. I am hoping for a cat fight or two and lots of chaos on the sides.
In light of breaking news the President is delaying his trip to Indonesia because they clearly do not have the votes to pass health care, this video might explain part of the problem. Rep. Stupak went a bit rogue last night in an interview with Greta Van Sustern explaining the dysfunctional mess inside the Democratic caucus trying to get votes. Today we find the admission that the leadership wants to pay for abortion despite repeated denials from the leadership and from Obama himself on many occasions is just too much for Stupak to overcome.
Stupak knows that this can't be fixed via reconciliation. The budgetary process will not allow it. If the House were to agree to a fix, it would never make it through the Senate:
Senate Democrats are bound to reject the Stupak language, just like they did in December. Specifically, somebody like Barbara Boxer will raise a Point of Order against the Stupak language to get it stricken from the reconciliation bill. The parliamentarian will presumably advise that the objection is valid - and 60 votes will be required to overturn the ruling to strike it. A majority of Senators will probably vote to overturn it - just as a majority voted for Stupak language in December - but it will fall short of the needed 60 vote supermajority. (Side prediction: the liberals who have been huffing and puffing about the supermajority requirements in the Senate will not be terribly upset by this.)
Furthermore, with the news from the Parliamentarian that the bill must be signed into law before reconciliation can take place, we know Stupak's leverage is gone completely once he gives his vote to make that happen. He knows they want to fund abortions, any vote from him or his block will all but guarantee abortion funding will be the law of the land.
Like so many B Movie Monsters, declaring health care dead can be a tricky thing. When, by all counts, the bill was on its' ninth life and on life support, Pelosi's declaration she did not have the votes seemed a certain fatal blow. Still, we've witnessed the monster open a gruesome eye and proceed to unleash more terror in the villages. Keep this in mind when following the latest blows to ObamaCare.
The first is largely a public relations blow, but still a blow nonetheless. Who knew President Obama had a cousin who is a practicing physician? Who knew he opposes ObamaCare? Compelled by the never ending health care push, Dr. Milton R. Wolf, second cousin to Barack Obama, finally made his opposition public. Here are few choice excerpts but, by all means, read the rest:
The justification for Obamacare has been to control costs, but the problem is there is little in Obamacare that will do that. Instead, there are provisions that will ration care and artificially set price. This is a confusion of costs and price.
Then there is this choice morsel:
Between Barack and a hard place
I have personally trained and practiced in both the government-run and free-market segments of American medicine. The difference is vast. Patients see this for themselves, and this may be why, according to a recent CNN poll, they oppose Obamacare nearly 3 to 1. I am with them. It is difficult for me to speak publicly against the president on his central issue, but too much is at stake.
I wish my cousin Barack the greatest of success in office. But I feel duty-bound to rise in opposition to Obamacare. I must take a stand for my patients, my profession and, ultimately, my country. The problems caused by government will not be solved by growing government. Now that this new era of big-government takeovers has spread to our health care system, it's not just our freedoms or our wallets that are at stake. It's our lives.
I have long felt this health care debate would have fallen apart long before this, long before the guy with the truck even, had the Obama administration not been shrewd enough to secure the support and subsequent silence of the health care industry. While some have expressed serious concerns over aspects of the plan, they have generally flown under the radar. Had they not, the already skeptical public would have been unnerved to a greater degree than has been expressed thus far. The support, superficial or sincere, of the health care industry has given at least some credibility to the administrations efforts thus far. For this reason, the editorial penned by a member of Obama's own family opposing the reform is stunning to say the least.
The second is potentially a much more serious blow. In any other world this would be fatal but with this Congress and this administration, such limitations seem not to apply. "This is their do or die moment," according to Paul Ryan so it's "game on" despite the fact the Senate Parliamentarian has declared the Senate bill must be signed into law before any reconciliation games begin, if they ever do:
Regardless of how bad a reconciliation package looks, Ryan says it is the passage of the Senate bill in the House that troubles him the most. “The Senate parliamentarian made it clear today,” he says. “The Senate bill has to become law before reconciliation can be taken up in the Senate. Knowing this, the Democrats are doing whatever they can to convince House members to walk the plank. But let’s be very clear: If the Senate bill passes in the House, it’s not just some setup for reconciliation — it’s a huge, new federal entitlement that’ll be signed into law.”
“To get that, they need to make promises to members about what’ll come next, so look for them to thread the needle on policy changes and abortion in the budget and rules committees,” Ryan says. “Reconciliation is a distraction for the Democratic leadership — something to talk about with members while keeping their eye on the main prize, which is passing the Senate bill.”
This puts passage of the House bill in jeopardy, particularly because the Stupak contingent have all but sworn they would not vote for the Senate bill without the guarantee of a fix for abortion language in the Senate bill they find objectionable. Early in the day it looked as though House leadership would attempt to gain the 216 votes needed for passage without seeking to find a strategy to secure the votes of the Stupak group. The news of the Parliamentarian's decision, however, raises the potential that Stupak had already decided at least he could not support the intended path to passing legislation. The following interview with Greta Van Sustern makes clear Stupak has severe doubts there will be a fix, whether by reconciliation or a magic wand, to the Senate bill once passed:
What becomes rather clear in the interview, there is a good deal of dysfunction amongst the Democrats about passing this bill. The timelines, growing distrust between the chambers and genuine fears members of the House will be fed in sacrifice to appease the great government health care gods all appear to be weighing against the likelihood of passage. Michelle Bachmann was interviewed on Hannity's radio program earlier today and stated the Democrats were at each others throats. Nevertheless, the Obama administration and Democratic leadership will not be deterred.
Despite the fact that everyday brings at least another potential no vote to the surface, we must remember we've seen this all before. When no one could believe they would stay in session in the Senate to pass the unpopular bill on Christmas Eve, the odds were defied and the bill passed. If there is a will there is a way with this Congress and we can say without absolute certainty there is a will. Astonishing though it might be, the progressives are actually still looking for ways they can add on the public option. Don't look now, Glenn Close just opened an eye from the bathtub. The health care "Fatal Attraction" continues.
Verum Serum has an excellent post and video that shows Kathleen Sebelius explaining the accounting tricks in the Reid bill to fund abortion through the insurance exchanges proposed in the legislation. Sebelius is lauding the maneuver as a positive step from the restrictions in the House bill introduced by Stupak. Here is the clip:
The compromise between the Stupak amendment and the much weaker language agreed to by Senator Ben Nelson in the Senate requires all participants in the insurance exchanges, regardless of age or sex or circumstance to contribute an additional fee that will be held strictly for the funding of abortions. As Morgen at Verum Serum writes this is extremely offensive:
As far as I’m concerned all they’ve done is cut out the middle man. In fact, I find this compromise arrangement even more offensive since whereas tax dollars are pooled to pay for innumerable government goods and services, without any specific accounting, under this new arrangement participants in the insurance exchange will know beyond a doubt that their financial contributions are being used to terminate the lives of unborn children.
Senator Nelson and I must define the term pro-life quite differently. I can't imagine how anyone who considers themselves pro-life would agree to such a provision. I suppose the saving grace in Nelson's mind is that state exchanges have the ability to opt out of the requirement. But as Morgen astutely points out this opt out clause will merely set off an endless round of battles between pro-life and pro-abortion activists.
The politically correct crew on the left is notoriously conscious of the slightest offenses toward the beliefs of nearly every group but the Christians and the right. I would not expect there to be some exception for those who morally object to abortion as a Christian and as a matter of principle. I wonder, however, if they stopped to consider that other religious groups consider abortion equally offensive as the Christians. Muslim teaching falls strongly on the side of life with the single exception being when the life of the mother is threatened. Those who morally object to abortion must either deny their religious objections and contribute to a fund devoted solely for the purpose of abortion or refrain from participating the exchanges.
In light of the mandate to purchase insurance included in the bill, those who object to abortion would be required to find insurance elsewhere though the exchanges are intended to obtain better prices for individuals. The Democrats refused to lift restrictions that prevent insurers from selling across state lines so in many cases those who find abortion morally objectionable would be left with few other choices other than the exchange to purchase the insurance they are required under law to buy. I would expect that none of this was discussed during the session negotiating the price for Senator Nelson's vote.
Though I strongly doubt that Nelson would change his mind and vote against the bill when the final vote in the Senate takes place, I hope that he becomes increasingly aware of how his little deal with Harry Reid will affect the life of the unborn he claimed to protect. If he does not, he should never campaing again while claiming to be pro-life, his concession mocks the title.
Ed Morrissey has a powerful video posted which is part of a series produced by Live Action's Rosa Acuna Project. Jill Stanek answers the question, "who is Rosa Acuna," key to understanding the purpose of the project:
Who is Rosa Acuna? In a case that went all the way to the US Supreme Court (which declined to hear it in October 2008), plaintiff Rosa Acuna sued abortionist Sheldon Turkish for giving her false information about her preborn baby's development.
The project reveals evidence of counseling abuses at Planned Parenthood obtained through undercover student investigations. In the video below you will see the pressure and deliberate lies told to prospective patients in order to sell the abortion:
New undercover footage from an Appleton, WI Planned Parenthood abortion clinic shows clinic staff, including the abortion doctor, lying to two young women about fetal development and encouraging the one who is pregnant to obtain an abortion because "women die having babies."
In the undercover video, when the two women ask a Planned Parenthood counselor if the pregnant woman's 10-week-old unborn child has a heartbeat, the counselor emphasizes "heart tones," and answers, "Heart beat is when the fetus is active in the uterus--can survive--which is about seventeen or eighteen weeks." On the contrary, embryologists agree that the heartbeat begins around 3 weeks. Wisconsin informed consent law requires that women receive medically accurate information before undergoing an abortion.
The counselor then says, "A fetus is what's in the uterus right now. That is not a baby." Dr. Prohaska, the abortion doctor, insists, "It's not a baby at this stage or anything like that." Prohaska also states that having an abortion will be "much safer than having a baby," warning, "You know, women die having babies."
Ed Morrissey points to the blatant distortions in the discussion of "heart tones" vs "heart beats:"
The explanation of “heart tones” is particularly dishonest. The counselor says it can’t be a heartbeat because the baby clump of cells isn’t viable, but that it becomes a heartbeat at 17-18 weeks. But a child isn’t viable at that point, either. It does come closer to corresponding with the legal limitations of Planned Parenthood’s abortion services, however.
Of course women do die having babies, though advances in medicine make this as unlikely as dying during an abortion, perhaps less so. Nevertheless, as a former high school support counselor, my larger objection is the "sales pitch." Though I am reluctant to discuss this matter in a blog for fear of violating confidentiality, I can speak in general terms to the vulnerability of any young woman facing an unplanned pregnancy. They are extremely vulnerable.
Although I am strongly pro-life, I would not have told a vulnerable young woman the counter to what she hears from Planned Parenthood, she can't kill her baby. The point of counseling is not to impose your values but to explore the client's values. The undercover student asked exactly the type of questions you hear from someone who doesn't quite buy the "this is a lump of cells," rationale for abortion. The younger the client, the closer they are to the womb, so to speak; they tend to lean more towards being pro-life. In short, it wasn't necessary to impose my values.
My job, however, was to bridge the gap and open a dialogue with the young woman's parents and brought in support services from an outside counselor who was also personally pro-life to assist the family from that point. I remember asking her once what the long term consequences were for a woman who was pro-choice who had an abortion. Her answer was truthful, there aren't many if, this is a big if mind you, they have had other children and truly understand the implications of the choice they are making. This is a minority of abortion cases and definitely not a population I saw in counseling.
Besides a host of long-term physical complications facing women who abort, the short and long-term psychological complications are astounding. These include; PTSD, suicide ideation, eating disorders, alcohol and drug abuse, relationship problems, sexual dysfunction, and quite commonly repeat abortions. It's a death spiral that seems hardly a solution in retrospect, to avoid being "punished with a baby." Suffice to say, without offering particulars, I saw these very real complications far more often than I did not.
When the liberals in the country decry those who want to deny women their choice, they ought to consider who is truly denying the choice here. The video clearly depicts the high pressure sales job facing vulnerable women in the hands of the abortion industry that thrives on expanded profits when the death-spiral consequences of denying a young woman honest answers about the consequences of her decision to abort kick in. Abortion is a billion dollar industry that feeds on the vulnerable in a moment of fear and weakness. The industry thrives hoping no one honestly explores a young woman's attitude about abortion, ignores her values and hopes to prey on her fear instead. That these same vulnerable young women, can and very often do, languish in years of emotional torment is the dirty secret of an industry that only succeeds when the choice of life is denied.
UPDATE: Jill Stanek has more on the lies told to the young woman in the video. Cassy Fiano also comments at Stop the ACLU and on her blog.
Wow, I am just stunned by this video. This former Planned Parenthood manager had the scales fall from her eyes as she watched an abortion on ultrasound. She reveals that she was pressured in this bad economy to bring abortions in the door and to de-emphasize prevention. Planned Parenthood is taking her to court to try and impose a gag order, a thought that makes me want to gag personally. I have the feeling this was the work of the Holy Spirit and somehow I don't see the Holy Spirit losing in court.
I have to say that I might have just reached burnout phase with Barack Obama and health care. Don't get me wrong, I have long since passed any phase where I was interested in what he said on substantive grounds. I've learned to expect little to no substance in fact. I was fascinated to see what he said or didn't say more importantly to game what would likely happen next in his game of health care roulette.
My overall impression of tonight's speech was complete disbelief this man would call a joint session of Congress only to repeat the same old worn out arguments he has been throwing around for months. He pretends to offer a new plan which is really same as the old plan dressed up in its' "Go to joint session of Congress" clothes. For those not listening closely, the speech was at times somewhat convincing. It all falls apart, however, when the fancy clothes are stripped away to reveal the same worn out contradictions and distortions.
He trotted out on of his regular distortions: "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have." I am really not sure who believes this anymore, if they ever did. I am dumbfounded why he feels compelled to keep repeating it. Perhaps he thinks he will wish it in to truth.
He claims to want bipartisanship, yet is combative at every turn and delivers what may have been one of the more partisan speeches since he pretended to leave the campaign trail. John Boehner seemed to really take exception to this point:
FACT: The Hill reported today, that the President has not met with House Republicans since April, and when Republican Leaders asked for such a meeting in a May 14 letter, the President ignored the request. The Politico reported on the President’s response on June 5, saying, “he makes no mention of the request to meet in the letter, which he signs off by stating, "Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me and I look forward to further discussions on this critically important issue." But those “further discussions” simply didn’t happen. The President’s letter is attached to this email, and you can click here to read the letter requesting the meeting, in which Republican Leaders wrote, “Despite our differences on some important health care-related issues, we are convinced there are areas offering potential for common ground on health care reform among Republicans and Democrats.” The facts are clear: blame for the lack of bipartisanship in the current health care debate lies squarely at the feet of Washington Democrats.
The facts bear Boehner out on this one, there has been no real effort to gain support for a bipartisan plan. The Democrats don't need Republicans to pass this monster, they'd just like a vote or two to get it through the Senate and for a bit of political cover.
Obama was jeered when he tried to make the claim abortion would not be covered nor would illegal aliens. As mentioned in a previous post both claims are untrue. Congressional Research Service examined the illegal alien provision and found those who meet the "substantial presence" test would be required to participate in the government insurance program. The Annenberg sponsored Fact Check debunks the claim that abortion is not covered.
The speech was loaded with problems. Reason has a full recap of the problems and the AP does a pretty good job showing the multitude of problems with the speech. Sarah Palin also posted a response to the speech and found the President wanting on his call for civility. Whether we agree or disagree with the President on policy, he should at a minimum serve as a model for civility and well-reasoned discussion, particularly in front of a joint session of Congress. This President seems incapable of both and that is truly sad.
There have been somegreat responses to the NRO editorial yesterday that took an unnecessary shot at Sarah Palin over her use of the term "death panel." Andy McCarthy's dissent at NRO literally shreds the editorial's lame assertion Palin's "death panel" description is "hysteria about hysteria." It is the NRO editorial that "leaps a logical canyon" as it gives credence to Palin's rational assessment of rationing yet claims her descriptor is somehow irrational.
That Palin is a lightening rod for both the left and the right, is somewhat indisputable at this point. Palin's barn-burner speech at the convention last August was a clarion call that rallied a right-wing base to the side of a candidate they were reluctant to embrace. On the left, an army of bloggers and media-types found a looming threat to the election of their heretofore unassailed candidate. The army was dispatched to destroy this threat with a crazed fervor that was chilling at a minimum. Rather than question the manic attack machine unleashed by the left, much of the right leaning beltway elite chose to pile on instead.
In short, the beltway elites were embarrassed by Palin and they denied her far more often than they defended her. This is the real underlying message of the NRO editorial, they still deny her, despite the rather obvious Palin victory in the messaging war on health care thus far. McCarthy notes this same rush to deny from the elites with Reagan:
Many of those same elites didn't like Ronald Reagan's jarring "evil empire" rhetoric. But "death panels" caught on with the public just like "evil empire" did because, for all their "heat rather than light" tut-tutting, critics could never quite discredit it.
Palin managed a rarity for Republican politicians these days, she bypassed the media elites and spoke directly to the people.
Palin delivered a message that resonated with broad sketches of the values espoused by each party formed and reaffirmed over time. The Democrats promote "choice," a candy-coated euphemism for unrestricted abortions for all. In the minds of a majority of Americans, "choice" does not equal "life." Obama is so fundamentally tied to unrestricted abortion, Pundette aptly names him "our abortion President." Abortion is not always a driving factor in voters' choice of candidates unfortunately. While Obama's support for FOCA and voting record on partial birth abortion in the Illinois Senate may not have hurt him with some voters in November, it is likely Palin's pro-life profile elevates those issues for those who ignored them when they went to the polls.
The abortion debate comes at an entirely different end of the lifespan spectrum than the "death panels" and rationing discussion however. Palin moves the debate a bit further down the spectrum raising concerns for the potential effects of rationing on children with disabilities in a way that few others in the political arena could. Dan McLaughlin wrote in the New Ledger last week, Palin's invocation of Trig created a flashpoint in the collective memory of the public about the left:
it is the Left that insists that it is appropriate to abort a child when prenatal testing reveals such a condition, and it was from the Left that we heard crude jibes suggesting that Palin should have done just that.
It is hard to imagine this same group would suddenly protect with passion access to care for a child they believe would have been better off had he not been born.
McLaughlin's piece makes another rather brilliant point that seems to have been missed in the discussion to a degree. McLaughlin suggests the Schiavo case may well be another memory flashpoint contributing to the association with death for the left:
But little attention was paid to the fact that the Right vs Left narrative of the Schiavo episode - one willingly stoked by Democrats eager to capitalize on precisely the “Religious Right overreach” angle - painted the Left as the advocates of ‘pulling the plug’ on Terri Schiavo.
While some on the left have attempted to "resurrect" Schiavo's case in an effort to point to more "Religious Right overreach," they may have done this at their peril. As McLaughlin correctly argues, "the American people know that the same people who wanted to pull the tube from Terri Schiavo want to be trusted not to pull the plug on grandma."
Palin personifies a stark contrast to the death association formed in the public's collective memory of the left. This gave undeniable resonance to her choice of words "death panel." Her words hit a simmering nerve of truth that forced an extraction of the contentious end of life counseling and brought the harsh reality of rationing to the fore. Perhaps the beltway elite will think twice before they run from her in the future, though truthfully, I doubt it. They seem to prefer strategies that allow Democrats' vulnerabilities to fester in hopes of gaining some meaningless absolution from main stream media elites. Will they ever learn?
