Ed Kilgore learns the shocking truth: Pro-lifers want the government to protect life. (We don’t, that is, want government to be “neutral” on the question.) He might want to pick better links, though. To back up his claim that pro-lifers have “no real evidence” that Obamacare will subsidize abortion, he links to a USA Today story that, in turn, relies on a factcheck.org analysis. Factcheck has a more recent analysis that largely bears out pro-lifers’ claims.
Kilgore also mentions a piece by Sam Stein at HuffPo. Stein seems to think that there’s some deep inconsistency between saying that the government should keep people from being denied food and water with the purpose of killing them, and saying that government should not be weighing in on families’ decisions about what types of medical treatments to provide patients. Now of course if you believe that cutting off food and water is simply a medical decision like any other, and that the intent to kill is irrelevant, then you won’t see the distinction. But the people whom Stein and Kilgore are trying to argue against see these matters completely differently, so there’s no internal inconsistency.