ProLife ProPatria -

In a bipartisan meeting, convened to discuss the fate of healthcare reform and the Democratic desire to get things moving, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)—the House minority leader—reminded President Obama that Americans had shown great support for limiting federal abortion coverage in the new bill.

“The Stupak-Pitts amendment," said Boehner, "which reflects the will of the American people on the issue of federal funding of abortion—is supported by a bipartisan majority in the House, but was excluded from the president's proposal."  Boehner also reminded the president that moderate Democrats in the House already pledged to vote against abortion coverage.

President Obama's response to Boehner is remarkable:

John, you know, the challenge I have here, and this has happened periodically, is every so often we have a pretty good conversation trying to get on some specifics, and then we go back to, you know, the standard talking points that the Democrats and Republicans have had for the last year.  And that doesn't drive us to an agreement on issues.

To put it tersely, this response is unimpressive.  It is entirely misleading, and it fails for a number of reasons.

Most importantly, the president simply avoids any mention of abortion at all.  After Boehner's statement—which includes the word, "abortion," at least a few times—Obama moves straight away from the topic, replacing the contentious word with terms like "pretty good conversation trying to get on some specifics" and "standard talking points."  Effectively, what the president does is attempt to neuter the congressman's remarks of their argumentative edge.  If Boehner is really just trying to hamper "pretty good conversation" on healthcare by bringing up a dried out, ideological "talking point," then Obama has really called him on the carpet.  But as it stands, Obama's response turns out to be a cowardly, dishonest attempt to make abortion debate into something passé.  "Agreement on issues" is in vogue, according to the president, not discussions of morality, or hashing out points of real political contention.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, did her part as well in showcasing the administration's stance toward abortion: she lied about it.  "There is no public funding of abortion in [the president's bill]," she remarked.  "I don't want our listeners or viewers to get the wrong impression from what you [Boehner] said."

While Obama simply avoided the centrality of the abortion debate, Pelosi flatly denied it, and even went so far as to state falsely that the Democratic healthcare bill supported by the president includes "no public funding of abortion"—a claim that is patently false.  Moreover, Pelosi seems to recognize a need to protect "listeners or viewers" of the summit from Boehner's "wrong" analysis of the situation.  Why should Americans, after all, be subjected to statements regarding the Stupak-Pitts majority in the House?

Time and again, abortion has proven to be divisive and volatile in the healthcare debate, but on almost every occasion, it has been marginalized by an Obama administration that refuses to treat it as a serious phenomenon.  Once again, when brought to the president's attention, abortion coverage in healthcare reform has fallen flat, brushed aside under the guise of partisan entrenchment and legislative stalling.

Americans, though, are becoming increasingly aware of this popular maneuver on the part of pro-abortion politicians.  Obama, Pelosi and others are continually being called to account for their words, which are recognizably shallow and misleading.  Political progress and "agreement" cannot be the only item on the agenda; there must be a dialogue based in truth, reasonable positions and a genuine concern for the human persons that constitute a political society in the first place.  What has happened with healthcare reform is merely a glimpse into the larger picture of domestic policy making over the last few years.  And Americans should not, and cannot be content with the direction it's heading.