Does a vote like the one that the Catholic Nancy Pelosi cast in favor of the healthcare bill constitute a compromise? Examine the way the antiwar Pelosi, following her "No" vote on the Iraq war, dismissed what had been her issue: the just and rightful use and disposition of those of her constituents who were already in uniform.
It's as though Katha Pollitt believes that Congressional votes are stepping stones, and that her reps--any of them missing a step and landing in a puddle, then getting up and moving forward with grace and aplomb--are in office and taking those steps for no reason other or better than to prove their own mettle.
Take a different subject on which Pelosi has had a vote: the child-molestation that is rampant (the first instance of it being one too many) within Pelosi's church. Likely never even to be brought up for a vote by the woman who claims that everything is for the children is the US's ability to sever relations with Vatican City.
As a Dem and someone raised in the Catholic Church (and one with a parent/teacher remaining alive), I do admit that, if a vote on severing relations with Vatican City were to be taken, there's a good chance that Bart Stupak would find himself being accompanied by Nancy Pelosi (and that he would not, this time, take her place or go in her stead, as was the case about him when it came to the addressing of the abortion section of the healthcare bill).
I think the question is whether or not we voters (Nancy Pelosi being one of us before she's anything else), by way of our silence, compromise.
I'd add that if Bart Stupak had not brought Catholicism into the healthcare debate, then the next time abortion was up for debate, the Catholic Church would've been without so much mojo--and without the part that that mojo plays in qualifying the Church's receipts as tax-deductible.
San Franciscans would be among all those who'd have a lot more tax monies with which to purchase healthcare (and they could vote to lavish money upon the search for a cure for AIDS) if they were represented by someone who wasn't hell-bent on catering to one special interest: the just and rightful disposition and use of her own, already-damned, soul.
There's no way, in a democracy, for a citizen like Nancy Pelosi to write a law that denies rights to another woman who is like her. Such a law is the business of religion. If Pelosi desires to practice religion, she can leave government. That, and only that, is her right, when it comes to solving what is for Pelosi the problem of another woman's abortion. I shouldn't be in a position in which it's necessary for me to say of Nancy Pelosi's god that he is not fooled by Pelosi's using Stupak to speak for her, to cover her ass.
A kiss on the cheek for Pollitt: Bart Stupak is the last person in the world able to speak for antiabortionists. He's not so committed to the idea of a state in which women have no rights to privacy that he's willing to name as a murderer, for his God, even one woman who's obtained an abortion. There never had to be a Judas, Katha. It wasn't a prophecy.
Mar 25 2010 - 10:46am