Religion & Law

The editors of Commonweal say that the newly enacted health care legislation is "abortion neutral" and maintains the status quo ante on abortion.  They accuse pro-life critics of the legislation of "crying wolf" about the legislation's expansion of the abortion license:  See here  http://commonwealmagazine.org/crying-wolf.  Today the editors of Public Discourse (on whose board I serve) criticize their colleagues at Commonweal, arguing that, in truth, (1) the executive order obtained by Bart Stupak in return for his support of the legislation will not prevent abortion subsidization under the legislation; (2) Community Health Centers will be permitted to use federal funds for abortions; and (3) the Hyde Amendment was not extended by the legislation to new funding streams created by the legislation, and as a result pro-life citizens will be compelled to subsidize abortions under their state's insurance exchanges.  See here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/04/1280 

To Commonweal's claim that pro-life groups and the U.S. Bishops (who favored health reform but opposed the legislation that was finally enacted because of its abortion expansion) are "crying wolf," Public Discourse says: "If implicating us in abortion by government-mandated payments is indeed 'the wolf,' then it is time to note that the wolf is no longer merely at the door?he is in the house."