http://online.worldmag.com/2010/11/03/g ... hallenges/



I don't see what's inconsistent with voting for a healthcare bill with potential for funding, though maybe that's because I'm not so dandy with the "pro-life" movement overall.

Wait, abortion supporters are dubbed "pro-life"?

How does that work?

Eh, they are generally "pro-life" Democrats, but they supported the healthcare bill, which allows for potential funding of abortion. Which is a rather biased way of saying "they didn't obstruct it from the start" (which seemed to be the Republican tactic for the past two years). So they didn't support abortion, they just didn't fight it hard enough to their tastes, rather singleminded if you ask me.

They only stuck the "potential" part in there to appeal to pro-life voters. Everyone with half a brain knows that a bill made by Democrats to appeal to Democrat voters would have pro-choice support in it, or at least set up for another bill to allow it (The health care overhaul that was already passed was supposed to be followed up with a "supplementary bill" of sorts, to fill in what had to be taken out to raise enough support in Congress)

Maybe they did, but in your explanation it would still be potential. And to be honest, I don't think "pro-life" Democrats would vote "pro-coice" when those laws would be introduced.

The healthcare overhaul was made to appeal to liberal Democrats, the majority of which are pro-coice.

I know, but that doesn't mean the overhaul is pro-choice. It simply does not follow logically. It's a correlation that is not very meaningful, though surely indicative.