Yuval Levin, The Corner, explains that an executive order on abortion language in the health care bill is a sham.
Levin writes:
Given the nature of the abortion language in the Senate bill, which creates a mechanism to allow for taxpayer funding of abortion coverage while pretending to prevent it, it is very hard to see what an executive order from President Obama could actually consist of, even as sheer cover. His freedom of action would seem to be very limited, so that such an order would be almost purely symbolic. The language Kathryn cited from a source last night could not possibly be a draft of actual executive order language, and if the concept behind it is what they have in mind—applying language from one law to another by means of executive order—then it is not even a fig leaf, it’s a bad joke.
Perhaps that’s why so committed a champion of public funding of abortion as Diana DeGette could support the idea. Surely no pro-life Democrat could join her—and no one who joins her could be called a pro-life Democrat.
______________
UPDATE, 2:30 PM CT:
Jim Sensenbrenner, speaking from the floor of the House, just explained that an executive order from Obama would NOT be effective.
The passage of the health care legislation WILL mean that federal funds will pay for abortions.
______________
From Kathryn Jean Lopez:
"An executive order can't change the law."
No comments:
Post a Comment