Senator Bob Casey, who supports an amendment banning public funding of abortions, has said that it’s not a deal breaker. Quite frankly, I’ve wondered all along if pro-life Democrats would follow the Casey line, making the debate over the amendment irrelevant. But now the Heritage Foundation blog has an item saying that this could turn out to be crucial, at least in slowing down the process, which would give opponents more time to make their case:
Once Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) files the Nelson-Hatch amendment, pro-abortion Senators in the Democratic caucus like Claire McCaskill (D-MO) will have a difficult decision to make: Do they vote for cloture, ending debate, and allow an up-or-down vote on the Nelson-Hatch amendment, or do they vote for a filibuster? If they vote to end debate and allow the vote, it is likely, maybe even probable, that 51 other Senators will vote in favor of the taxpayer-abortion-funding ban.
Once the abortion funding ban is in the bill, it will be next to impossible for pro-abortion forces to get it out. They will be in the same exact position House progressives were when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) forced them to accept the Stupak language or lose Obamacare entirely. Progressives in the House completely caved the first time around, but more strident pro-abortion members like Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) have promised that the second time around they will stand up for their principals and vote down any Obamacare bill that comes contains Stupak like language.
Finder’s Fee: National Review’s Critical Care blog