Tuesday, January 19, 2010

An opportunity for pro-life prayers

It's nice to see some good news for a change:
BOSTON - The loss by the once-favored Democrat Martha Coakley in the Democratic stronghold was a stunning embarrassment for the White House after Obama rushed to Boston on Sunday to try to save the foundering candidate. Her defeat signaled big political problems for the president's party this fall when House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates are on the ballot nationwide.

"I have no interest in sugarcoating what happened in Massachusetts," said Sen. Robert Menendez, the head of the Senate Democrats' campaign committee. "There is a lot of anxiety in the country right now. Americans are understandably impatient."

Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, which could allow the GOP to block the president's health care legislation and the rest of his agenda. Democrats needed Coakley to win for a 60th vote to thwart Republican filibusters.

One day shy of the first anniversary of Obama's swearing-in, the election played out amid a backdrop of animosity and resentment from voters over persistently high unemployment, Wall Street bailouts, exploding federal budget deficits and partisan wrangling over health care.

I get that Brown's far from perfect, of course. But consider for a moment that in one of the most liberal states in America, a state that was the first to legalize gay marriage and which then ran the Catholic Church out of the adoption business rather than permit a religious exemption to the law, a state that went overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, a Republican has just been elected to hold the office formerly hold by a Democratic party icon, the late Senator Kennedy.

However the Democrats try to spin this victory, Scott Brown's Senate win has to be sending shockwaves through the party. If they could lose a "legacy" seat in one of the bluest of the blue states on the eve of a crucial health care vote even after President Obama himself campaigned on Martha Coakley's behalf, then nothing's a sure thing as we head into this year's elections.

There will be spin, of course. Coakley herself will be blamed for running a lackluster campaign--a truth, but not the whole truth. The soft economy will be blamed, too, and the election spun not as a referendum on health care, but on, as Senator Menendez is quoted as saying above, the fact that Americans are "impatient" for the change Obama promised. But I'm also fairly certain that some in the Democratic party will be insisting that the Brown victory means nothing in terms of the rest of the nation--this was an isolated incident, Americans are anxious for the health care reform bill to be passed, and this year's elections will prove that Coakley's loss is Coakley's fault, and hers alone.

As we approach the Congressional elections this coming November, we'll know for sure whether the "isolated incident" theory holds water. In the meantime, this single election may end up meaning that unborn Americans may not end up having their deaths by living dismemberment, poison, and other grisly methods paid for by United States taxpayers after all.

To that end, I'd like to suggest that all of my pro-life readers add to their prayer intentions the intention that God will strengthen the conviction of all of the pro-life members of the House and Senate, so that any health care reform bill which might be passed would not contain the grave evil of abortion funding, but would instead provide adequate and compassionate care for pregnant women in need and their unborn children. The election of Scott Brown to the Senate might give unborn Americans the chance they need to be remembered as human beings deserving of respect, not dismissed as disposable human waste and preyed upon by the powers of darkness.


Aaron said...

I'm sticking with my prediction from when they first started floating this legislation: the Democrats will not pass (nor will Obama sign) a bill that doesn't provide for abortion funding. Obama made it clear during the campaign that universal access to abortion (which they define as access regardless of the ability to pay) was his number one priority, and we've seen nothing to suggest that has changed.

Funding and further legitimizing abortion is a major reason they want nationalized health care. If they can't keep it in there in some form, they'll let the bill go down in flames, try to use that against Republicans, and hope to do better next time. The one thing we're least likely to get is a health care bill that disallows abortion funding. The best we can hope for from this crowd is no bill at all.

Melanie B said...

"that God will strengthen the conviction of all of the pro-life members of the House and Senate, so that any health care reform bill which might be passed would not contain the grave evil of abortion funding, but would instead provide adequate and compassionate care for pregnant women in need and their unborn children. "


Magister Christianus said...

Well said, Red! We do not pray enough for our elected leaders. I would pray, also, that God turn the hearts of those who are at present anti-life.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

It is my seldom humble opinion that Massachusetts voters were expressing their approval of health care reform. After all, in their state, experience teaches that when you elect a Republican, you get comprehensive health care reform! (Remember Mitt Romney?) The fact that the state cheerfully elected two Republicans in a row as governor, at the same time that they were re-electing Kennedy and Kerry to the senate, says something about stereotyping states as "liberal" or "conservative." Now they have a Democratic governor and a Republican senator! In my home state, in 2004, 6% of the electorate split their ticket between George W. Bush and the only senator to vote NO on the "USA Patriot Act." Go figure. Voters do things in ways no pundit could ever account for.

As to abortion funding, there are simply too many pro-life Democrats in the house for any bill to pass which directly funds abortion. Congratulations.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Incidentally, according to TIME Magazine, Scott Brown is dedicated to voting against health care reform, but is supportive of Roe v. Wade. One problem with representative government is that candidates come as whole persons. We all wish we could slice and dice, mix and match, pick and choose, to assemble the perfect candidate... except that wouldn't be anyone else's perfect candidate. I'd gladly concede to pro-life and favorable to health care reform.