An Open Letter to the Obama Prayer Chain

I am responding to an item of concern on the Obama Prayer chain. I do so through this seldom used blog out of respect for the forum of prayer that the Obama Prayer blog represents. This post is in response to questions about the availability of federal premiums to be used for the purpose of abortion on demand.

In the fall of 2009 Bart Stupak (D-MI) presented an amendment to clearly and strictly prohibit the use of any federal tax dollars to be used for the purpose of abortion. This amendment was voted and approved by the House of Representatives. (240-194) You can see the amendment here. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid both oppose this amendment which would assure that no federal funds were used to fund abortions. Click here for an article that offers both perspectives on this amendment. The side antagonistic to this bill (generally democratic) continually emphasizes that it is an "assault" on women's reproductive rights. This is a euphemism for a woman's right to kill her baby for any or no reason. We know this because Stupak specifically allows for cases 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 life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself...". I'll leave the rightness or wrongness of the exceptional type of abortion to God...the fact is that this amendment is designed to prevent our federal dollars from being used to fund abortions as a means of birth control and our House leader, Ms. Pelosi voted against it. See paragraph 3 in this article for proof. Further, the very next paragraph has Ms. Pelosi telling us she is confident - as they reconcile the two bills (house and senate)- they can eliminate the language because Stupak goes "to far". Harry Reid for his part didn't even include the Stupak language in the Senate version of the bill for consideration. Instead they wish to work with something called Nelson(D-NE)-Casey(D-PA) which allows for a subsidized insurance exchange to pay for abortions. (See paragraph 9 in this article.) While we can opt out of the exchange as a federally insured individual - Barbara Boxer (D-CA) says it's an accounting procedure to allow premiums to still be used to subsidize the exchange whose sole purpose is to accommodate abortion on demand. Hence, Mr. Stupak's continued opposition to the Senate version. In any case Rep. Stupak is not included in the reconciliation process to stand up for the fetus, which would be obvious to all if the Senate/House leadership were broadcasting on C-Span as Obama repeatedly indicated they should during the campaign. Which brings up the next question.

"GOING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS" ... DOES ANYONE KNOW ANY GOOD REASON(S) THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE?

It is out of line for several reasons. Many who voted for President Obama did so with the understanding that he would be bi-partisan. Clearly our congressional majority leaders have decided that if you can't get 'em to join your view then leave them out of the process. The President clearly advocated for transparency, and a minimum of 48 hours for the American public and our leaders to review legislation before a vote. I suspect that you wouldn't be wondering about the legitimacy of my concern if the negotiations were being broadcast on c-span. There would be ample information as a result of that public forum for the interested observer to understand what is happening. This trend is something that even many democrats are concerned with which, in my opinion explains why the race in Massachusetts is as close. There is now a pro-choice republican advocating transparency running a close race behind a pro-choice democrat who advocates casting the final vote required to pass a bill that has lacked transparency. And even a solidly democratic constituency understands that this is not what we were promised.

Finally, "RICHARD, WHY DID YOU CAPITALIZE THE "O" WHEN YOU REFERRED TO PRESIDENT OBAMA...". I'm so glad you ask that question because as I wrote the note I first wrote it with a lower case, then changed it because I thought some would feel offended that since the one I was talking about was President Obama. (as if I used lower case to say 'president obama') No doubt this confusion on my part is a result of Oprah christening of Mr. Obama as "the One" for prior to that incident I would never have even considered that there might be people that actually believe the capital letter is necessary. Sometimes reading the Obama Prayer team prayer submissions, it seems there are those who believe he can do no wrong. That his efforts and administrative team is absolutely right in all things. To that I repeat what my friend Benjamin stated shortly after my prayer, "...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...". This includes me. you. obama. bush. and every man making decisions and passing laws on behalf of "we the people". I voted for George Bush, I don't think he did everything right. In fact I disagreed with many policies. My past vote doesn't preclude me from hoping in the Lord and asking God's protection and direction for our current President. I take great pains to be objective. What I don't understand is the disposition about our President which implies that all who disagree with him have 'hate' or somehow have a 'wicked spirit of judging' - and those who agree are among the righteous. He does not define right and wrong. Only God in his infinite wisdom can define right and wrong - and I do believe that Obama, our congress - just as Bush and the congress that served with him can and do get it wrong on occasion. The beauty of our system however, is that by balancing the interests of us all - e pluribus unum - from many come one. From many opinions come one rule of law. It is a truly an amazing system. When that one rule of law is a result of only one view (60 democratic votes), and that view serves to destroy the most innocent rather than protect - I become exceedingly concerned, hence my prayer earlier today.

I have come to accept Ms. Jordan's assertion that we all pray what the Lord places on our heart and let the prayer be given to the ONE [smile] who truly is "faithful and just to forgive us our sins"I Jhn 1:9, even those that we commit out of ignorance of the facts.