Charlie Bass Shows Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Can Have Common Ground

By way of understatement, let's just say abortion can be a divisive topic.  But this is a story of common ground and how, even in this thorny area, there are some questions on which all reasonable minds can agree.

Such an opportunity came last week in the form of the Protect Life Act, which would prohibit using taxpayer money to fund abortions through Obamacare.  

Windham's congressman is Charlie Bass of Peterborough, who represents NH's Second Congressional District.  If you asked Charlie where he fell in the binary-label abortion debate, he'd say he was pro-choice.  As you would expect, he caught plenty of flak for that through the years, particularly on his past votes against restricting transportation of minors across state line for abortion, against making it a crime to harm an unborn child while committing another crime, and against expanding protection of health providers who refuse to perform abortions. 

But just because Charlie is pro-choice doesn't mean he believes in outright homicide.  So Charlie joined a large, bipartisan majority in banning "partial birth abortions."  Abortionists use the euphemism "intact dilation and extraction" to describe a procedure whereby the unborn child's head is delivered outside the mother's body (leaving his or her legs inside to protect the pretext that the child is not yet "born), whereupon his or her skull is punctured and brain sucked out.  Charming, isn't it? 

Now you see how they use "intact" meaning the child, "dilation" meaning the skull, and "extraction" meaning the brain.  But I digress.  The point is there are some "easy cases" when it comes to abortion, where reasonable people come together and draw some lines.

This brings me to last week's vote on the Protect Life Act on taxpayer funding for abortions.  But there's a story behind it.

The story starts with the Hyde Amendment, a 1976 law the prohibits the federal government from funding abortions.  Even after Roe v. Wade struck down anti-abortion laws, our society still felt taxpayer funding of abortions was a line we would not cross.  Hyde Amendment language, supported by bipartisan majorities, was the law of the land through inclusion in annual appropriations legislation until 2010.

In March of 2010, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid finally jammed through Obamacare.  The coup de grace was that the House of Representatives had to pass the exact same bill as had passed the Senate prior to the election of Scott Brown.  And there was a problem -- the Senate version did not include the Hyde Amendment, opening up the doors of taxpayer funded abortions through the machinations of the new health law.

The votes to pass Obamacare in the House came down to a group of pro-life Democrats, led by longtime Michigan representative Bart Stupak.  The group senses that once we opened the way for taxpayer funded abortion, you'd never get the genie back in the bottle.  So Barack Obama looked them in the eye in offered a deal -- vote for Obamacare and Obama will issue an "Executive Order" ordering the Department of Health and Human Services to issue regulations prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortion.

Stupak and his cohort fell for it.  No quicker than he could say, "promises are for suckers," Obama double-crossed the pro-life group.  In the summer of 2010, the Obama Administration admitted that new Obamacare programs in Pennsylvania and New Mexico would indeed allow taxpayer funding of abortion.  "Gullibility" isn't a sought-after trait in one's elected representatives, so most of Stupak's group either retired or went down to defeat in the 2010 elections. 

Last week, the House of Representatives took up the Protect Life Act to reverse the double-cross and restore the Hyde Amendment as the law of the land.  There was an internet rumor that Charlie Bass was leaning against the Act.  I didn't really believe it, but I took no chances anyway.  I wrote Charlie's DC office a short email saying pro-life and pro-choice had found common ground on a number of issues, including taxpayer funding.

I doubt my message tipped any sort of balance, but I'm still happy that Charlie agreed.  He voted in favor of the Protect Life Act and supported the long-time, bipartisan consensus on this issue.

Unfortunately, the double-cross is likely to remain in place until Obamacare is repealed in full. The Democrat-controlled Senate is unlikely to take it up.  And Barack Obama, maybe figuring that once he lied he might as well lie all the way, has threatened a veto.  

Yes, I said reasonable minds will agree.  But that doesn't cover everyone.