If SecularProLife.org proves anything, it's that the pro-life movement is far from monolithic. I do believe that our diversity is, on the whole, beneficial. However, we have to be careful to avoid infighting. During the initial debate over Obamacare, I was disappointed by the rift that developed regarding pro-life Democrats.
Republicans campaigned very successfully on a "repeal and replace" platform, and Obamacare is back on the table. I don't want us to repeat our same mistakes this time around. So here, as I see it, are the major areas of agreement and disagreement.
Areas of agreement:
1) Our current health care system has serious flaws. We would all like to see more people insured, especially children. There's room for debate about the best solution, but no one seriously disputes that there is a problem.
2) Health care reform should not involve taxpayer funding of abortion. There is broad pro-life support for legislation that would clarify and codify Obama's Executive Order. Even the Catholic Health Association, which denied that Obamacare contained abortion funding to begin with, thinks that this legislation couldn't hurt.
Areas of disagreement:
1) Should we try to improve Obamacare, or do we need to scrap it and start over? Conservatives advocate a policy of "repeal and replace," but do not have the votes to repeal. On the other hand, the liberal pro-life opinion is that there is a lot of good in the bill, and that keeping most of it intact is the best way to promote life and health. (This is also the apparent position of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.)
2) Supposing a "repeal and replace" view, what should be the replacement?
3) Let's not forget about Gunner and other people with disabilities. The National Right to Life Committee has been particularly vocal in its concern rationing is inevitable under Obamacare. With or without Obamacare, how can we practically ensure that society's "undesirables" aren't sent to the end of the line?