Editor in Chief

Whenever I note that all roads seem to circle back to the abortion issue in American politics, I am reminded by people whose eyes are twirling out of their sockets that for my information, a very low, sometimes even single-digit, percentage of Americans are single-issue voters. Yup, heard that. Yet I for one am not the least bit surprised that on the brink of victory in the 40-year fight for health care reform, Democrats have turned on each other over the issue that polls routinely show is
not driving voters -- nope, not at all. Politicians, though, are another story. And at the first sign of push-back in 30 years, pro-choice activists are threatening civil war; I don't doubt that they mean it.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL ProChoice America,
told Politics Daily's Jill Lawrence, "There's elections coming up in 2010. We will know who stood with us and who stood against us. . . . It's a new day and I'm here to tell you we're going to hold those accountable who voted against us." Lawrence writes that "this would be a departure. According to Keenan, her group has supported a challenger in a Democratic primary only once.'' Of course it's a departure; only recently has there been anyone to primary, because pro-life candidates couldn't get arrested without the approval – and because this is America, the cash – of the abortion-rights lobby.
Talk about forest-for-the-trees thinking; without the support of those pro-life Democrats that activists are so eager to throw out the window, there would be no bill, period. Which is apparently fine with the dozens of House Democrats – 40 so far – who have signed a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowing to vote down any final bill that contains the abortion restrictions laid out in the Stupak Amendment that passed in the House. We are about to find out whether the abortion-rights lobby, and the members of Congress who are supported by it and vice versa, are more interested in expanding coverage or preserving political power.
Which, predictably enough, is exactly what the abortion-rights lobby has accused the Catholic bishops of being motivated by: Planned Parenthood's Laurie Rubiner, according to Lawrence's PD story today, "blames the collapse of the earlier House agreement on abortion on 11th-hour 'intimidation tactics' by Catholic bishops, including robo-calls and requirements that priests give sermons on the issue. 'It was pretty shocking . . . This was their no. 1 priority. Not getting health care to immigrants or low-income women or children. Their no. 1 priority was restricting abortion for middle class women.' "
Ahem, re: no. 1 priorities, can you say "projection"? And that shot about immigrants is just wrong; the Catholic Church has been
out in front on that one, with bishops yelling until they were hoarse that both morally and practically, universal coverage
had to include immigrants.
As I've said before, pro- and anti-abortion rights groups have more in common than either side would like to admit; the Catholic Church sees abortion as a "foundational" issue, and so do absolutist supporters of abortion rights.
Which is why, while many pro-lifers continue to see Obama's commencement address at the University of Notre Dame last spring as nothing but a cynical and manipulative play for votes, pro-choicers carry on complaining that he walked into the enemy camp unarmed, and made (way too) nice. The president
spoke of middle ground on that occasion – thrillingly, I thought. But as someone who is standing on it, I can tell you: That muddy little patch is uncomfortable on a good day, what with armored tanks zooming past in both directions. And at moments like this, I'm not sure it exists at all.