She can’t be allowed to stand in the way of nationalizing America’s healthcare system.
In the battle over ObamaCare, pro-life Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak (MI) has pleasantly surprised many conservatives and infuriated many leftists for his insistence on torpedoing the entire bill if it funds abortion. The success of his efforts remains to be seen, but like Joe Lieberman and Bob Casey (senior, not junior) before him, he’s become Public Enemy #1 among his former allies.
The Daily Beast’s Benjamin Sarlin has an interview with Stupak’s primary challenger, county commissioner Connie Saltonstall, who pledges to be a good little trooper on abortion and healthcare “reform”:
“One of the main reasons I’m active in politics is because I believe health-care reform has been necessary for over 20 years,” she told The Daily Beast. “When Bart threatened to vote against reform and there was no other candidate standing up against him, I felt I had to do it […] Frankly, many of the constituents here think [Stupak] should run as a Republican,” Saltonstall said. “Many Democrats here swallowed hard when they voted for him because of his pro-life position because they felt the alternative was worse. But his behavior surrounding the health-care issue has crossed the line […] Democrats in his district are outraged at the grandstanding he’s been doing,” she said. “They really feel he’s doing this for his own personal agenda rather than because he’s representing them.”
Personal agenda? You mean his constituents never realized they were voting for a pro-lifer? Wait, you say they “swallowed hard” because “the alternative was worse,” so that can’t be it. Sarlin has two polls showing Michiganders agree with Stupak by solid margins, so that can’t be it, either. Looks to me like Stupak isn’t the one with a “personal agenda”…in reality, this is a manifestation of the progressive delusion that “only we are in line with the true, pure will of society; all others are slaves to ignorance or personal self-interest.”
Also missing from Ms. Saltonstall’s remarks is a substantive case against Stupak’s position. But that’s an easy absence to explain: there isn’t one.
Slowly but surely, America is becoming more pro-life as science and technology make people increasingly aware of the unborn baby’s increasingly-undeniable humanity, and as abortion advocates increasingly resort to disturbing and unconvincing arguments that humanity and personhood are somehow separable.
But beyond that, even pro-choice Americans should easily be able to see why their countrymen view abortion differently, and recognizing a basic right to one’s own money is all it takes to oppose forcing Americans to fund something they morally oppose. Indeed, Stupak’s position is firmly in line with Thomas Jefferson’s view that:
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
Connie Saltonstall’s problem with individual rights seems to extend beyond the right to life. But then again, considering that she supports a plan that would force Americans to buy health insurance under penalty of law, that shouldn’t surprise us.