Photo: One Thing President Obama’s Executive Order Accomplished

Of the 14 members of Congress pictured below during the President’s signing of the Executive Order on abortion funding, only six survived the Midterm elections:

Jonathan Imbody speculates if the President may have intentionally thrown pro-life Democrats under the bus. After all, there will be very few (in fact, hardly any) pro-life Democrats in the next Congress. In that sense, Obama’s executive order did accomplish something: it sealed the fate of these formerly pro-life representatives.

May this serve as a warning the next time pro-life officials are tempted to compromise their principles.



  • EGS

    It is a huge risk to tie the pro-life movement 100% to a single political party. We risk the life of many unborn in an election cicle like that of 2008, when democrats surge and republicans fall…this will always happen every 12 or so years. Lets not bash but rather strengthen the fragile pro-life convictions of many so called pro-life democrats.

    • Elaine

      I agree that the pro-life movement should not put all its “eggs” into a single political “basket” if it can be avoided. Perhaps it can’t be avoided in the short term though.

      That being said, I think and have always thought that establishing a pro-life presence in the Democratic Party should be a VERY high long-term political priority of the movement, equal in importance to electing a pro-life president and getting pro-life justices on the Supreme Court.

      One truly pro-life Catholic Democrat is Cong. Dan Lipinski (IL-3), the ONLY Catholic Democrat to vote FOR the Stupak Amendment and AGAINST the final version of Obamacare. He won reelection with 70 percent of the vote, by the way. Is he in the picture above? (He’s not my Congressman although he is from my state)

      • G. Arambula

        I for one, am tired of voting for pro-life candidates on this single issue because of my Catholic duty. I have a deep sense of betrayal by these do nothing pro-life Republican politicians who get my vote year after year and quite frankly I feel used. The country has other issues that need to be addressed but we have voted in these pro-lifers who are part of “the party of no”. The Democrats do have good ideas, just as the Republicans do, and I want both parties to work together for the common good of all our citizens. I feel that pro-life politicians are using the Catholic vote to stall and stall and stall. Meanwhile, they get their other non-Catholic agendas pushed forward while we wait around for something to magically happen like a bunch of morons. I feel like all these years I have wasted my vote.

        • Mort

          G.A : Don’t ever feel like you are wasting your vote. More than that don’t ever feel that voting for pro-life candidates is a “Catholic duty”. If you believe in pro-life issues it is “your” duty. You should never feel the Church is twisting your arm on this issue and forcing you to vote a certain way – because it doesn’t. The Church explains it’s view on the topic clearly and if you don’t buy it – why? Pro-Life should never feel like a ‘duty’ if it does learn more about it talk to your priest about it. Go to blogs and web pages like ‘Priests for Life’.

          People make the mistake of saying this is a Christian issue – a Catholic duty – just because the champions of this fight more often than not tend to be Christains. This is a human issue.
          Votes do have consequences which you know.

          A bit of trivia : What was one of the first things President Obama felt compelled to do upon taking office? You guessed it he rescinded The Mexico City Policy which when signed in by President Reagan stated : non-governmental organizations to “agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds” that they would “neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations”.[3] The policy had exceptions for abortions done in response to rape, incest, or life-threatening conditions.
          Why would Obama rescind the policy? Because he doesn’t share our pro-life view.
          If we had more people (this is a people issue not just a Catholic issue) voting for life in 2008 that would never have happened.
          A vote for life is never a ‘waste’.

  • John Jakubczyk

    Those of us who have tried to encourage “pro-life” democrats to stand firm against Obama’s slight of hand warned that this would happen and he did not care about them. Had he been honest with them, he would have supported their initial position to have it as part of the bill. He wanted to purge the party of pro-life democrat politicians as such individuals pose a threat to his agenda. But they drank the kool-adi and now they are diminished both in number and in respect. Sad.

  • Diane Elizabeth

    Clinton said, “I did not have sex with that woman”
    Obama said, “I will not use gov’t money to pay for abortions in health care reform.”


    • G Arambula

      Diane, your comment clearly indicates that you do not understand the gist of this editorial or the nature of the Exceutive Order that was signed. The order, Diane, ensures that the protections of the Hyde Ammendment of 1977 which places restrictions on federally funded abortions are extended to the recently enacted health care bill. The exact language in the Executive Order that President Obama is signing in the photo above states:
      “Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their rsponsibilities, new and old. The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.”

      No one lied Diane. It’s a sad thing when pro-life Democrats worked tirelessly to ensure that the Hyde Act extends to the recent healthcare legislation (which by the way is full of great things) and they lost their seats, while the Republican pro-lifers did nothing to ensure that the Hyde Act extends to the current health care law and they still have their seats.

      I disagree with Mr. Peters as well. The new healthcare legislation will help millions of Americans who have been denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, children and young people who desperately need medical attention, and millions of elderly who will no longer fall into the “donought hole” with their drug care costs. I do not believe that the Democrat pro-lifers compromised their principles. Quite the contrary, they stood their ground by insisting that the Hyde ammendment remained in full force. And Mr. Peters, the ones who threw them under the bus for standing by their convictions were their own constituents, not the President.

  • Margaret B

    Shame none of them survived the mid-term. But I’ll take what I can get.



Receive our updates via email.