"I'm not sure anybody who views "reproductive rights" – a euphemism if ever there was one -- as a basic human right could fathom why that's an offensive comparison to those of us who support human rights for the unborn, too. But even from a pro-choice point-of-view, isn't comparing funding for ending a pregnancy to funding for pharmaceutical erectile enhancement a little bit off/facile/reductive/unfortunate?"No kidding.
Also note, when you read the whole piece, that Henneberger does NOT think that the Senate version of the Stupak (in the Senate, it's Nelson-Hatch-Casey) amendment is needed to keep the basic Hyde agreement in place. [Huh? check out my post from yesterday.)
Michael Sean Winters, at America, disagrees. I'm not so worried, he's always a little overly-pious on this score. On the other hand, he knows Washington, and he catches something very interesting, that certainly never occurred to me -- Joe Biden's replacement voted in favor of Nelson-Hatch:
The most interesting vote cast yesterday was that of Senator Ted Kaufman of Delaware. Who? If you don’t recall the name it is because he recently joined the Senate, appointed to fill the seat vacated by Vice-President Joe Biden. Kaufman was a long time aide to Biden and while his seat is not exactly held in trust, it is unthinkable that he would have voted as he did without some indication from the Vice President’s office that such a vote was welcome. This is not to say that the White House has tipped its hat, but I think it shows that the White House is not going to the mat in opposition to the Stupak amendment either.[my emphasis]I was hoping Joe's pro-life views would at least get a hearing in the Obama administration. Maybe this is happening.
