This is one item in the Labor Appropriations Budget bill, that includes $158 billion in funding for things like Medicare and Medicaid and many other critical services. The reality is that with a republican president and a bare majority in the senate, nothing is going to get done without bipartisan support.

I assume the congressional leadership felt like they had to give something, anything, to the GOP side in order to get a veto-proof majority that would stop Bush from killing the budget. There shouldn't be abstinence-only funding in the measure, but if it stops the entire bill from getting vetoed, and keeps a lot of people from unnecessary suffering because their funding is cut, is it a fair tradeoff? That is the question here. Sometimes you have to compromise, as it is the only way to get anything done. Does being progressive mean never compromising?

The question is, if legislators are too idealistic and hold the line on everything, would they get nothing done? The way to kill abstinence funding is to get a Democratic party president. Then there wouldn't need to be these tradeoffs, and having to give things to the right just to get bills passed.

That situation doesn't exist yet. $32 million for a stupid program that won't work is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other funding in that bill. This is called "playing the game" in politics and it does not mean that these democrats are "pro-abortion" That claim is patently absurd.