One the brighter side, approx. 1500 poor women per year will be able to be referred by Planned Parenthood to breast cancer screaming service providers.

For those Americans who understand that abortion is the murder of the most helpless and only guaranteed innocents in the world – and who are actually against it even if childbearing inconveniences some females, Komen’s rapid capitulation to the abortionists in painful and maddening. There are, however, other points to consider in this matter.

Do Not Act As They Do

Komen For The Cure’s mission is stated as the eradication of breast cancer, not the ending of on-demand abortions in America.  The two things are not related beyond the simple fact that both are “women’s issues.” It just doesn’t make sense for Komen not to reverse their decision in the wake of the Feminists’ shrill and strident objections because not doing so could jeopardize the success of their mission.

Anger should be directed at those Feminists who placed on-demand abortion above women’s health, not at Komen.  Remember always that it was exactly these Feminists who called for Komen’s destruction for not supporting abortion. Americans should not sink to their antisocial level and similarly put the fight against breast cancer in jeopardy.

Market Forces In Action

Utterly irrespective of whether we, as Americans, like Komen’s giving in to the abortionists, this was a direct case of free market forces in full operation. It was empirical proof that, in the absence of governmental intervention and meddling, people can directly impact and change the course of business. Certainly, we don’t have to like this specific occurrence but we must respect it for what it was.

Enough of Komen’s consumers were against the new funding policy to potentially negatively impact Komen’s revenues enough to make a difference. Komen responded as is required by the free market and, unless we’re willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we have to understand and accept that.

~*~

Many of us donated to Komen For The Cure when they donated approximately 0.17% of their annual outlays to Planned Parenthood, which funded only 4% the breast cancer screenings Planned Parenthood provided, and I can’t see the point in turning away from them just because they tried to change that and failed due to market pressures.

Our domestic enemies might be comfortable behaving that way, but we should be better and more intelligent than that.

The Feminists or, at least those who publicly define the movement, will willingly throw any other plank of their platform on trash heap along with scalded and dismembered corpses of their murdered unborn children in order to further their ability to kill those unborn children at any time for any or no reason at all.

If you want a synopsis of the Feminists’ instantaneous hysteria and vitriol, it can be found here. Alternately, you can go to the cited WaPo article, Why Komen defunded Planned Parenthood, and grind your way through the earlier comments (Sort Oldest to Newest).

NOTE: Some of the later negative comments were more rational and thoughtful, touching on other aspects of how Komen For The Cure conducts business. None of my rage is focused on them.

Those earlier comments and the general knee-jerk reaction across all the Feminist websites definitely show that these sorts don’t care about women’s health, only their continued privilege to terminate their pregnancies at will.

Some very basic – and grim – statistics follow. Based upon them you tell me if these Feminists who were so quick to rant at- and call for the destruction of Komen For The Cure are at all interested in women’s health.

Pregnancy & Abortion

22% of American pregnancies end in induced abortions. Only 3% – 12% of those were reported by the women having them to have been due to concerns about their health and we have no statistics on the sources or severity of their concerns. Even this low percentage seems inflated since the US has only an approximate 0.024% maternal mortality rate.

Breast Cancer

12.5% of women in America will be diagnosed with one form or another of invasive breast cancer during their lives. Another 3% will be diagnosed with one form or another of in situ breast cancer. 17% of these women will die from the disease within 5 years.

~*~

It seems to me that, if one really cares about women’s health, one doesn’t immediately call for the end of America’s largest and most successful breast cancer awareness organization just because they’ve shown insufficient ideological purity by moving away from the very politically and socially controversial Planned Parenthood.

To be fair though, I’m both very pro- breast cancer awareness and research and staunchly anti-abortion and am, thus far less likely than these Feminists to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

But About Komen…

As I noted near the beginning of this post, while there’s no excuse for the early rants against Komen, some valid questions were raised later, both about Komen’s business model and continuing usefulness.

There’s a huge intellectual and ethical difference between instantly seeking the destruction of an organization over their not adhering to ideology only tangentially – at best – related to their mission and having that ideological divergence be the last straw on a pile of disappointments.

Changes in affiliation and funding aside, is Komen For The Cure a good charity? Some data follows:

Charity Watchdog Ratings

• Charity Navigator gives Komen it’s highest ranking, 4 stars, and gives them an overall numeric score of 66.20 (higher than Planned Parenthood’s 61.03 score)
• Charity Watch lists Komen in their Top-Rated Charities and gives them a B+ rating (same as given Planned Parenthood)
• Give Well doesn’t have a rating for Komen but one of reviewers expressed disappointment with Komen (and the American Cancer Society)  because they spent more on education, awareness and treatment provisioning programs than on medical research, but she implied that this was because public education and provision of existing treatments in the “Developed World” don’t translate well into global improvements, which seems to be Give Well’s focus.

Those seem like pretty strong ratings from the groups devoted to monitoring the behavior and efficiency of charities.

Komen’s Financials

• Total 2011 FY Revenues: $439,451,449.00
• Total 2011 FY Expenditures: $408,977,824.00
• Expenditures – Research: $75,301,537.00 (19%)
• Expenditures – Education: $181,092,283.00 (44%)
• Expenditures – Health Screening: $54,089,036.00 (13%)
• Expenditures – Treatment Services: $23,251,563.00 (6%)
• Expenditures – Operating Costs: $75,243,405.00 (18%)

Data is derived from Komen’s 2010 – 2011 Consolidated Financial Statements prepared by independent auditors (Ernst & Young)

Both Komen’s research and education expenditures are larger than their operating costs and their operating costs, at 18% of total expenditures, are far below the national average of 24%.

Komen also spent over $54 million on breast cancer screening services, of which only the $700 thousand they had previously given to Planned Parenthood has been reassigned.

It is, however, obvious that Komen’s focus is on education and awareness programs, not screening or treatment programs since their education expenditures are more than double the combined screening and treatment expenditures, and are more than research, screening, and treatment expenditures combined.

Some Achievements Komen Has Been Part Of

• Almost 75% of women over 40 years old now receive regular mammograms as compared to less than 30% in 1982.
• the five-year survival rate for breast cancer, when caught before it spreads beyond the breast (60% of diagnosed cases), is now 98%, compared to 74% in 1982
• US Federal government expenditures for breast cancer research, treatment, and prevention now exceed $900 million per year, compared to $30 million in 1982.
• At 2.5 million, breast cancer survivors are now the largest the largest group of cancer survivors in the US.

Those are some substantial achievements. True, Komen was only a part of them but I believe that it can’t be truthfully said that Komen and their pink ribbon weren’t the leaders in these efforts.

~*~

Looking at the data it seems that Komen For The Cure is a lean, highly focused charity that has to-date done a great deal of good and who will do what is necessary to ensure that they can keep doing so. If that means shuffling some small amount of their grants away from a controversial entity that could bring political pressure down upon them by association, they’ll do it in order not to jeopardize their mission.

There is the question though of whether or not Komen’s mission is still worth pursuing in the manner that they’ve chosen to do so. Their focus is on awareness and is there a continued need for such efforts and monies to be spent on such awareness?

“Pink Ribbon Fatigue” is real. Some, such as medical sociologist Gayle A. Sulik, Ph.D even go so far as to claim that the “Pink Ribbon Culture” has reached the point where it has built a “breast cancer industry” which many pharmaceutical companies are profiteering from.

And they have a point. America is very much aware of breast cancer, so continued extensive efforts in that area might be – and could definitely be seen as – more self-serving or inertia-based than truly useful.  It’s also quite true that the sentimentalism of Komen’s “Pink Ribbon Culture” keeps breast cancer at the forefront of what I choose to describe as the “cancer maintenance industry” instead of refocusing medical science on the less profitable curing of the disease.

Personally, I’d like to see them shift some of their money away from education and awareness programs and into more research and/or treatment and screening programs. It’s not, however, enough of an issue to me that they’re not doing so would cause me to stop donating to them, just as whether or not they work with Planned Parenthood never affected my donations to them.

Sadly, the rabid, infanticidal harpies who’ve managed to become the public and political face of the Feminists have dramatically differing priorities.

US District judge Sam Sparks had previously ruled in August that it violates physicians’ free-speech rights – by what legal basis nobody knows.

As Technorati’s contributor, Stephen Alexander writes:

In Texas, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Texas law that mandates women seeking an abortion to have a sonogram examination and to listen to a physician’s detailed description of the fetus, including whether it has developed limbs or internal organs.

The people who support the law say it is designed to ensure that women are fully informed about abortions. More importantly, they want to discourage women from undergoing the procedure. The law, enacted last year requires all women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound scan, except for those who certify that they are rape victims. Victims of rape are permitted to avoid hearing a description of the fetus or embryo.

Texas’ law will now go into effect and it’s doubtful that anyone will successfully challenge it in the SCOTUS.

Oh yeah, Liberals and Feminists panties are twisting over this ruling. Of course, if these females had kept their panties on in the first place or showed a bit of common sense when they took them off, this issue would never have come up.

It’s, after all, a choice; women have a choice about when, how, with who, and with what protections they have sex.

Presenting facts backed up by numbers and charts is, by and large, useless with the Statists and Socialists that call themselves Liberals and Progressives and it’s utterly useless with their minority tenants, who foolishly see themselves as beneficiaries of this agenda. Hence, I’ll leave that aside for now.

I will instead focus on the “They can afford it” rationalization since it is not based upon falsehoods, being instead based upon utilitarianism or consequentialism. I wonder how they would respond to a similar argument on a subject that Liberals have strong and visceral feelings about – abortion.

They Can Afford Them

Let America as a nation and society outlaw the abortion of White babies but continue to allow minorities, especially the Blacks, to engage in the unsavory practice. Let America as a people go so far as to guarantee these minorities access to abortion through subsidies and funding.

Due to the striations in household economies, including access to health insurance, Whites can, more often than not, afford to have these children. While an unplanned pregnancy might be an inconvenience to them, it is unlikely to drive Whites into true poverty. Statistics show this is not similarly true for minorities.

Furthermore, there is a long waiting list for White babies. There are far more prospective adoptive parents than there are White babies up for adoption. This is sadly not true for minority babies, especially Black babies who are seven times less likely to be adopted even after their prices – euphemistically called “adoption finalization costs” – are discounted up to 33% by the various agencies.

Finally, one also has to take the modern definition of racism into account. Since 64% of the women partaking of abortions are non-White, making it illegal for them to continue to do so would cause a disproportionate impact upon these minority women. Such disproportionate impact has been held by the courts to be racist and discriminatory even if the laws or practices in question have absolutely no racial component.

As can be seen from these facts there’s no reasons based upon consequences for continuing to allow Whites to abort their babies but many reasons to make sure that minorities, especially Blacks, are continued to be allowed to do so. The Whites can afford the children and the adoption system can handle those White babies that end up in it; neither is statistically the case for non-Whites.

~*~

The arguments above are all factual within the limits of polling accuracy and statistical analysis as applied to population groups. In point of fact, these arguments make up a large part of basis for the Liberals’ ongoing fight to keep abortion legal and have the government subsidize it. That doesn’t make this “modest proposal” any less abhorrent.

It’d be an interesting thought experiment to graph the outrage of who’s more bothered by criminalizing abortion for Whites and who’s more bothered by not doing so for minorities.

Yes, the rich can afford to pay more in taxes. That ability to pay more doesn’t mean that it’s right to tax them more just because others want their money, just as the facts of abortion demographics don’t make it right to base the abortion laws upon individuals’ and society’s ability to afford having and raising the children.

The argument that they can afford it so it’s OK to take from them is an example of the grievous flaws in utilitarianism or consequentialism.

By her own pride-filled admission she’s not even limiting this, as many do, to cases of rape or endangerment to life of the mother.

No; this infanticidal monster is talking about abortion on demand for the sake of women’s convenience being a good thing, a moral choice!

Abortion has value. It is not just the lesser of two evils, but abortion can be a good, moral decision, in and of itself. And I am not talking about cases of rape or life endangerment. I’m talking about everyday women – you, maybe, or your mom, friend, sister, wife, girlfriend, roommate – who simply know that they do not want to be pregnant, and do not want to parent this child, at this time.

The one in three women in America who decide that abortion is right for them deserve to be recognized as people, as full moral agents, and not to be treated like children to need to be taught right from wrong. Women deserve easy access to high-quality, affordable abortion care, without waiting periods, and without biased counseling.

Until abortion is recognized as having value in and of itself, we’re going to continue to battle the Mike Pences, Chris Smiths, and Scott Roeders of the world.

– Gina M. D’Andrea Weatherup

There is one portion of this creature’s drivel that can actually agree with, that the women seeking abortions should not be treated like children who need to be taught Right from Wrong. They are, in fact, full moral agents, are fully culpable for their choices and actions, should be recognized as such by Americans, and deserve to reap the full consequences of those choices and actions.

Gina D’Andrea Weatherup Thinks This Is a Good, Moral Choice

I firmly believe and advocate that, while creatures like this Gina M. D’Andrea Weatherup are allowed to walk free among people of America and promulgate this infanticidal ideology that killing unborn babies is a good thing, our nation needs more people like Mike Pence, Chris Smith, and Scott Roeder. It especially needs more heroic martyrs such as Mr. Roeder who sacrificed himself in order save countless babies from Late-Term Abortion aka Partial-Birth Abortion.

Don’t get me wrong; I have some pity for the girls and women who have either chosen or been coerced by Planned Parenthood’s “Counselors” into choosing to abort their children as a horrible, but still lesser, evil. I don’t even have a strong hatred for Planned Parenthood as a whole; the bulk of their services being necessary gynecological care for poor women.

Things like this Gina M. D’Andrea Weatherup, however, do not deserve pity, compassion, or mercy from anyone and should not be considered just as valid targets, but as primary targets in Americans’ battle for the unborn.

~*~

I can’t help wonder if, while in their nice, shady backyard watching their cute little daughter play, Gina and her husband, Chris – I’m assuming that they’re married since she appended his surname to her own – discuss when to have that talk with her. You know, the one about “the birds and the bees, and the D & C’s.”

I also wonder if they’ve preformulated an answer in case their daughter ever asks, “How many of my brothers or sisters did you kill, mommy?”

~*~

But she is, in a twisted sort of way, right. Abortion has value. Gina and Chris’ house looks like it probably cost around 500K and abortion and her depraved manner of advocating for it helped pay for it.

As perfectly befits Hooters, their solution was, “delightfully tacky, yet unrefined.” It will also likely work given the agendas involved.

Playing directly into the raison d’être of the Feminists, Hooters has decided to start producing and providing to all children brought into their restaurants very specific cookies!

Hooters’ New Fetus Cookie – Kid Tested and Feminazi Approved

Fetus cookies would promulgate exactly the message that NOW holds as its core function, that the unborn should be killed at whim – as long as that whim belongs to a nominal female. Infanticide / Abortion is the foundation of their whole movement, as the behavior of Feminists during the 2008 elections proved beyond a shadow doubt to any sane American.

This brilliant, if immoral, tactic should get NOW to rethink their position on continuously attacking Hooters. After all, to a Feminist, what’s a few hot babes in skimpy clothing compared to getting children desensitized to the death of the unborn?

A spokesman for Hooters who asked to remain nameless informed said,

We’re not pleased with the idea of these cookies; they’re really sort of sick and creepy. They’ll probably do the trick and get NOW off our backs, at least for now, though.

When we showed the local NOW chapter samples of the cookies they really seemed to love them. I mean really love them. It ended up looking like the “Bake Sale From Hell”

The way those women started drooling and crunching on the fetus cookies was kind of scary, especially when they starting cooing and petting each other while stuffing their faces. Ugh!

We were..ah, how do I say it? We were getting pretty scared and disturbed by the end of it. It sort of looked like something from Shakespeare or one of those old Greek plays.

Obviously, we’ll have to wait and see how this pans out. The Feminists are not monolithic – except often in physical form – and some might not want to back off from their attacks upon Hooters since some might be hetero and be more hurt and scared by the beautiful girls at Hooters then others, while many are lesbians and, hence, less personally concerned with indoctrinating children into accepting infanticide as a woman’s “right” than with just attacking any heterosexual display.

All in all though, these fetus cookies are probably Hooters best shot at placating NOW and getting them to cease and desist their paper terrorism.

Note please that I’m Anti-Abortion as opposed to Pro-Life. I have no moral qualms about exterminating vermin in order to protect the innocent – and who is more innocent than the unborn?

The baby killers on the Left have already taken steps to ensure that, even if some version Stupak’s amendment is included in the monstrosity of ObamaCare’s Health Insurance Reconstruction, the public funding of infanticide will proceed according to their plans.

President Obama’s pet Infanticide, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, Kathleen “Kill All You Want; We’ll Fund More” Sebelius, was proud to explain the abortion funding loophole in the current Senate bill.

HHS Sec., Kathleen Sebelius Explains ObamaCare Infanticide Loophole

During an interview on December 21, 2009, with the Feminists at Blogher, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius tried to quell their fears that they might have to pay out their own money in order to have their unborn children scalded within their wombs, scraped out, and tossed onto the trash heap.

Sebelius explained to the representative from Blogher that the bill, irrespective of any Stupak or Hyde Amendment that might be applied to it, would force everyone who enrolls in the new Insurance Exchange created by ObamaCare to contribute part of their premiums to a “special set aside fund” by way of a special “accounting procedure.”

The separate, special fund to be created by this “accounting procedure” would then be used by the government to subsidize or pay for abortions without technically using any Public Funds, i.e.,  Americans’ tax dollars.

This is certainly an egregious loophole since it does bypass the Hyde Amendment and therefor any variant  of the Stupak Amendment as well.

While public funds aren’t used, we are not isolating, discriminating against or invading the privacy rights of women. There would be an accounting procedure, but everybody in the exchange would do the same thing. Whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay.

– HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius
December 21,2009, Blogher Interview

So now public funds would be used to pay for abortions. Instead part of the money payed by every American who purchased a health insurance policy from ObamaCare’s health insurance exchange would be required by federal law to be set aside for that subhuman, nefarious purpose.

Since the Liberals reign for the moment, ObamaCare will likely be forced upon American and, with it both the health insurance exchanges and Sebelius’ favorite infanticidal loophole. This is all but a certainty since they’ll do anything to achieve it.

This places Americans in a very difficult position. Since it’s not actual tax dollars being used to fund infanticide / abortion, it is technically a voluntary contribution to that Hell-born cause. Yet, if one chooses to, or is forced to, purchase health insurance from the ObamaCare exchange, one is de facto choosing to fund the deaths of 100′s of thousands of babies per year.

Would you buy health insurance the ObamaCare exchange knowing that by fiat part of your premiums will go towards the deaths of unborn children? What if you’re one of the 100+ million Americans who will be forced due to economic pressures upon their employers to either purchase health insurance the ObamaCare exchange or do without?

This is, of course, completely to be expected. President Obama is and has always been a fervent, passionate, and staunch proponent of elective on-demand abortions for any and all reasons or excuses.

Straight from Obama’s mouthpiece at the White House:

White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod suggested Sunday that President Obama will intervene to make sure a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion coverage is stripped from final health care reform legislation.

In doing so, the president would be heeding the call of abortion rights supporters like Planned Parenthood that have called the White House their “strongest weapon” in keeping such restrictions out of the bill.

Obama has always maintained a 100% NARAL rating and pioneered legislation to ensure that even children who somehow survived being aborted would be murdered – even if it meant leaving them to die on shelves in a utility room or tossing into the trash bin while they were still alive.

You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions. And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you’re happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it’s not going to change.

– President Obama
ABC News Interview, Nov. 9, 2009

This was a good a valid sounding statement from President Barack “The Baby Killer” Obama. It eloquently and succinctly summed up the quandary facing both the Legislative and Executive branches of America’s federal government. Unsurprisingly it didn’t take long for this particular POTUS to turn it into just another of his lies concerning healthcare “reform” and abortion / infanticide.

Go ahead and look, Liberals! It’s what you condone and endorse. They’re not people after all…

With the Stupak Amendment attached to it, ObamaCare is not an “abortion bill” and the status quo regarding the federal government spending American’s tax dollars to subsidize abortion / infanticide is maintained. Without the Stupak Amendment ObamaCare is very much an abortion / infanticide bill since any federal subsidy or “affordability credit” given to an insurance plan that covers abortions is both a violation of the Hyde Amendment and a decided change in the status quo.

The only significant difference between President Obama and “Dr.” George “Baby Killer” Tiller, aside from Obama still having a pulse, is that Obama has never performed an abortion with his own hands.

No; this doesn’t mean anyone should execute Obama. While I can understand the desire to do so in order to save America’s children, it would serve no valid pragmatic purpose. He, like President Kennedy, would be made a martyr and his agenda, most likely en total, would be made into law.

Remember that only the Liberals have anything to gain from Obama’s assassination and then only if they can either setup an American to do it or frame one for it.

Americans must fight against President Obama’s “intervention.” Any and all means that offer some hope of success must be used to ensure that whatever health insurance takeover bill that reaches President Obama’s desk includes the Stupak Amendment or another amendment that serves the same legal purpose.

We may fail in this endeavor; the odds are certainly not in America’s children’s favor. But, if we do not fight against this with our property, our effort, and – if needs be and the Devils will out – our flesh, then we are just as culpable for those children’s murders as the creatures who scald them with caustics or cut them apart while they’re still alive.

Admittedly, this is not bad news. But it’s a very cold comfort at best.

That supposed victory for the Pro-Life movement would be the Stupak Amendment to HR 3962 that was passed by US House of Representatives in a  240 – 194 roll-call vote. The Amendment was put forth by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI), Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), Dan Lipinski (D-IL), Joe Pitts (R-PA), and Chris Smith (R-NJ) – a truly bipartisan effort and one shockingly led by Democrats.

SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.

(a) IN GENERAL. – No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for any abortion or to Cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

(b) OPTION TO PURCHASE’ SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN – Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any non-federal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as -

(1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and

(2) such coverage or plan is not purchased using

(A) individual premium payments required for a Exchange-participating health benefits plan towards which an affordability credit is applied; or

(B) other non-federal funds required to receive a federal payment, including a State’s or locality’s, contribution of Medicaid matching funds.

(c) OPTION TO OFFER SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN. – Notwithstanding section 303(b), nothing in this section shall restrict any non-federal QHBP offering entity from offering separate supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long as

(1) premiums for such separate supplemental coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act;

(2) administrative costs and all services offered through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid for using only premiums collected for such coverage ,or plan; and

(3) any non-federal QHBP offering entity that offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that includes coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section also offers an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that is identical in every respect except that it does not cover, abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section.

Yes; this is a victory in the sense that it wasn’t a further loss to the Liberals. It was a victory in the same way that defenders holding their line and not breaking under an onslaught and holding their ground is a victory.

The passage of the Stupak Amendment merely maintained the status quo on abortion. It was only a victory because it goes a long way towards preventing ObamaCare from using federal tax dollars to subsidize voluntary, on-demand abortions. Despite various bits of misinformation from President Obama, the Liberals’ healthcare reconstruction would have been an end-run around the Hyde Amendment without the Stupak Amendement being attached to it.

I see little reason for a victory dance over just holding the line.