"Objectionable"?: A response to Bob

In response to Bob's last post, a few quick thoughts:  First, it is not at all the case that opposing the proposal that passed the House is -- the Stupak amendment notwithstanding -- (anything like) "aim[ing] at stifling the Magisterium itself."  That the (purported) end of the House's proposal is one that is consonant with a reasonable (even compelling) application of the Church's social teachings certainly does not mean that the House's (current) view on the best means for achieving that end must be endorsed by faithful Catholics.

Second, I would think that the reactions to the House vote that are more troubling to Bob are those of the many, many furious Democrats who are insisting that the House proposal should be rejected if Stupak is not stripped.  Surfing through the left-leaning blogosphere, it would be easy to come away with the impression that public funding for abortion is more important to a not-insignificant number of the Party's base than is health-care for the currently uninsured  -- indeed, that the base is somewhat Taliban-ish in their wild-eyed devotion to the public subsidization of the abortion license.