Politically, Joseph Cao is now in an impossible position.  He voted for the healthcare bill before he voted against it.  His opposing stands have angered both his conservative base and the African-American majority in the Second District to whom he sought to reach out to-and potentially earn the votes of-in the November elections.   

The Congressman says he cast both votes out of pure principle.  

Cao states he supports healthcare reform, but could only vote for the measure with strong prohibitions creating a firewall against even the possibility of federal funds being used for abortion.  The original house bill, armed with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment (a restatement of the traditional Hyde Amendment) did so.  

In Cao's view, neither the Senate bill, nor the corresponding Exe­cutive Order reached that standard.   

As the 2nd District Congressman explained in an open letter to President Obama, "To me, a moral ethicist and a former Jesuit seminarian, and to literally tens of thousands of the Louisianians I represent, the Senate abortion language is dangerously insufficient."     

Cao went on to argue that "Federal vouchers could be used to purchase insurance plans that cover abortion on demand, federal courts could force community health clinics receiving billions of dollars in new federal funding to perform taxpayer-financed abortions, and governmental agencies could be free to discriminate against physicians and nurses who object to abortion as a matter of conscience".     

He wrote to the President  that "despite your Administration's best intentions, the Executive Order you plan to issue stating that abortions would not be funded under the Senate Bill could be overturned in the federal courts given their consistent rulings that the federal government must pay for abortions unless Congress explicitly adds the Hyde Amend­ment prohibiting them.

"I came to Congress to represent my constituents and their needs," Cao continued, "And, I have always said that I am an independent thinker who puts aside partisan wrangling to do the business of the people. At the end of the day, though, there are some principles on which I cannot compromise and on which my constituents would not want me to. Expanding federal funding of abortion is one."        

Cao reminded President Obama of his September 9, 2009 promise to a joint session of Congress that "[n]o federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

"My respect for you, already deep, grew upon hearing you say that," Cao told the President.  "On the basis of this statement and because of our personal relationship,   I early on pledged myself as your partner in healthcare reform, and I gave you my word that I would come to you as an honest and thoughtful broker, checking politics and partisanship at the door for the good of my constituents and the nation. Nothing in my vote tonight changes that commitment."        

Cao's office used the defense that the Congressman's stand was precisely that of the Catholic Bishops, who supported the House legislation and opposed the eventual Senate bill.  

It was that of the very popular New Orleans Archbishop Gregory Aymond who wrote that "his heart" was with Cao.  

None of this matters, though. Thanks to Bart Stupak, Cao's one shield of Democratic defense evaporated.          

As long as Stupak contended the Senate legislation did not protect the unborn, Cao had a high-profile intellectual protector on the left, one with impeccable Democratic credentials that provided the Congressman with the intellectual apologetic to woo liberal swing voters upset that he voted against an Administration that remains overwhelmingly popular with the voters of Louisiana's Second Congressional District.      

The high-profile media position of Stupak might have provided Cao with some defense in an already difficult re-election campaign, if the Michigan Congress­man had maintained his opposition.   Yet the choice by Stupak to endorse the Executive Order as sufficient to maintain current funding restrictions leaves Cao in an undefendable partisan position.  

Those who like the bill already number as the majority of the electorate in the 2nd District, and are more likely to believe Stupak than Joseph Cao.      

"I am deeply disappointed that after being thrown a fundraiser by Republican House Minority Lead­er John Boehner the week before the vote, Congressman Cao went against the will and health of his district by joining Con­gressional Republicans in voting against this historic and urgent legislation to reform our country's healthcare system," says State Representative Cedric Richmond, who has inferred he will run against Cao.

"Under the current system, 7,700 Louisiana residents will die by 2016 for lack of health insurance. This legislation will help them get the care they need to save their lives.  Furthermore, let me be perfectly clear, there is no public funding of abortion in this legislation. Congressman Cao's opposition is less a principled stance against fictional public funding of abortion and more a smoke screen to hide behind, as it was recently reported that his campaign contributions fell by 40 percent after his vote for the House healthcare legislation last year."      

Of course, what Richmond does not mention is that Cao's new found opposition does little to placate Republicans who had already branded the Congressman a traitor.    

Cao's sudden conversion to their side will do little to encourage Tea Party activism on his behalf, an enthusiasm gap of which most endangered Republicans will not have to worry come November.

For Cao to win another term in office a peculiar chain of political circumstance had to occur.  In an overwhelming Democratic district in which Barack Obama claimed 75 percent of the vote, any Republican would face a disadvantage.  To emerge victorious, Cao had to have nearly a full turnout of GOP voters (15 percent of the electorate) and win the strong independent vote.    On top of that, under the best of circumstances, the Congressman would have to face not only an African-American Democrat, but an Independent Black candidate with good political credentials that could draw off enough of the vote that Cao could win a plurality.  (Congressional elections in Louis­iana no longer require a majority runoff.)      

Of the latter, the two most viable potential candidates that might demure from the Democratic primary have decided against bolting their party.  State Senator Ed Murray has by all accounts decided against a bid, and State Represen­tative Juan LaFonta has refused overtures to run as an Independent rather than in the Democratic primary.         

While Cao likely will not face a primary challenge, a real possibility if he had voted for the Senate bill, there is little motivation in GOP ranks to turn out on a "RINO's" behalf.       

Cao's one argument to his fellow Republicans is that in the wake of the passage of health care is that the GOP has a chance to re-claim control of the House of Repre­sentatives, but that argument that might motivate Republicans (and some Independents who like the checks and balances of divided government) will turn off the white Democrats that proved Cao's margin of victory over Bill Jefferson two years ago.

This article was originally published in the March 29, 2010 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper