The Washington Times - March 18, 2010, 04:43PM

According to an article in The Brown Daily Herald, Rep. James Langevin (D–R.I.) has a tough choice to make. One of three Budget Committee Democrats that voted to recommend the Stupak-Pitts Amendment be included in the final version of the health care bill, Langevin is an avowed pro-life Democrat (though he supports embryonic stem-cell research and abortion in cases of rape, incest and harm to the mother). 

However, he —like other Roman Catholics in Congress —is contemplating whether he will vote for health care legislation devoid of provisions against taxpayer-funded abortions. “Representative Langevin ha[s] long stated that no one issue will derail health care,” said Joy Fox, Langevin’s campaign spokesperson. Will the abortion issue be enough to sway Langevin to vote nay on health care?


Some Catholics don’t appear to be grappling with the same moral dilemma Langevin supposedly is. In a interview from December 9 of last year, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D–Md.) seemed to imply she plans to vote for the health care bill regardless of whether it contains stipulations against taxpayer-funded abortions. 

Pro-choice Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D—Calif.), arguably the fiercest proponent of the health care bill as well as a Roman Catholic, appears to have no concerns that the health care bill will fund abortions. “It is abortion neutral in terms of access and diminution of access,” said Pelosi in a March 4 Politico article titled “Pelosi annoyed on abortion.” 

While the bill may be ‘abortion neutral’ as Pelosi claims, I doubt many people would argue the Bill of Rights was a bad idea. 

Why aren’t these politicians receiving the same criticism Sen. John Kerry (D–Mass.) received from the Catholic Church in 2004 for his pro-choice stance on abortion? Why the inconsistency? 

It’s time for the Catholic Church to be explicitly hot or cold on the issue.