The debate over whether Obamacare involves government funding of abortion continues. I don’t think this is actually a close question. Note that Ruth Marcus, one of the chief proponents of the view that it doesn’t, had to claim–on the basis of no evidence–that the community health centers the bill funds don’t do abortions; and in her latest post on the subject she just ignores the community health question altogether. John McCormack does a fine job of dismantling other attempts to spin the bill as one pro-lifers can live with. (The editors of Commonweal, it turns out, don’t know what they’re talking about.)

Let’s leave aside the merits for a moment and talk politics. Say you’re a Democrat whose constituents lean pro-life but you don’t really care much about the issue yourself. You want to vote with your party, and you think there’s enough of a debate about whether the bill involves government funding of abortion or not that you can get away with supporting it.

Any Democrat who reasons this way is kidding himself. It is the bulk of pro-lifers–and in particular the ones most active on the issue–who define that label for political purposes. Who are these people more likely to side with and trust in this dispute? The National Right to Life Committee, or Commonweal? The Catholic bishops–most of whom support national health insurance–or the Catholic Health Association? The Democrats who are bucking their party, or the ones who are going along with it? Laura Ingraham or Ruth Marcus?

This vote is career-defining, and as NR editorialized the other day, any politician who supports this bill is forfeiting the pro-life label.