The pro-life movement and health care
I’d like to highlight a particular section of the article cited by Kari in an earlier post, about how many pro-life Catholics, by opposing health care reform on the principle of opposition to “socialism,” are actually making it more likely that the final bill will fund abortions. At one point, the article quotes Professor Stephen Schneck, director of the Life Cycle Institute here at CUA:
The American bishops have demonstrated what being pro-life really entails: fulsome and open-handed support for the complex needs of life in all its stages…Would that the rest of the pro-life movement had the moral compass of the Catholic bishops. More than 45 million Americans are without health care and nearly 30 million of those are children. The moral imperative of being pro-life brooks no excuses for avoiding the desperate needs of these least of our brethren. And, yes, it’s high time to call to accounts those so-called pro-life leaders who dodge, who equivocate, who lack courage, or — most tragically — who oppose all policy efforts to address the life needs of these many Americans.
This, really, is the bottom line, much more so than the strategic error that many pro-lifers are making. I do not, obviously, suggest that all pro-life Catholics have an obligation to support the Democrats’ health care plan. However, I think it is wholly legitimate to argue that we do have an obligation to recognize that the American health care system in its current form is dysfunctional, indeed downright evil. After all, to be blunt, we already have “death panels” in the form of insurance companies whose relentless pursuit of profit above care literally kills people every day (many of them cover abortions, too). How we address this problem is truly a matter of prudential judgment on which people can disagree in good faith. However, as a matter of principle, if you are not just as incensed (yes, incensed, outraged, mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-anymore) by these facts and numbers cited by Professor Schneck as you are about the evils of perceived “socialism,” then I don’t think you have the right to call yourself pro-life, and I don’t think you are approaching the argument in good faith. I don’t think a pro-life worldview in a truly Catholic and catholic sense is compatible with the belief that the evils of government trump the evil of cancer patients dying because they cannot afford health care, that allowing families to fall into bankruptcy because of illness is a worthy price to pay for the preservation of the free market. I’m all for banding together to ensure that abortion funding is explicitly excluded from any final health care plan, but I will not stay silent when a principled opposition to abortion is shackled to an anti-government extremism that opposes any meaningful health care reform.
Trackbacks
- When criticizing the pro-life movement… « Vox Nova
- Follow-up on abortion and health careS « Vox Nova
Comments are closed.
The Church takes a very positive view of government. In fact, the Compendium reminds us that because the “individual person, the family or intermediate groups are not able to achieve their full development by themselves for living a truly human life,” political institutions are needed “to make available to persons the necessary material, cultural, moral and spiritual goods.” In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict insists that “the institutional path–we might also call it the political path–of charity” is “no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly.”
So why are so many apparently devout pro-life Catholics fearful of the government providing a basic human necessity, health care? I think it has to do with our experience of government as that “dictatorship of relativism” which has made abortion into a basic human right, more basic even than the right to life itself. Many pro-lifers simply do not see our own (American) government as working toward the common good. Recent healthcare-related decisions in Congress and the administration–including the outright rejection of a ban on federal funding of abortion in the House legislation–have led many to conclude that no good can come of this so-called reform effort. I personally do not agree with that, nor do our bishops when they speak collectively. But I certainly understand it.
(This corrects the formatting in the version I first submitted.)
The Church takes a very positive view of government. In fact, the Compendium reminds us that because the “individual person, the family or intermediate groups are not able to achieve their full development by themselves for living a truly human life,” political institutions are needed “to make available to persons the necessary material, cultural, moral and spiritual goods.” In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict insists that “the institutional path–we might also call it the political path–of charity” is “no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbor directly.”
So why are so many apparently devout pro-life Catholics fearful of the government providing a basic human necessity, health care? I think it has to do with our experience of government as that “dictatorship of relativism” which has made abortion into a basic human right, more basic even than the right to life itself. Many pro-lifers simply do not see our own (American) government as working toward the common good. Recent healthcare-related decisions in Congress and the administration–including the outright rejection of a ban on federal funding of abortion in the House legislation–have led many to conclude that no good can come of this so-called reform effort. I personally do not agree with that, nor do our bishops when they speak collectively. But I certainly understand it.
Perhaps someone can answer a question for me, and I apologize to the author of this fine post, with which I find points of agreement, for it is not related to the topic.
Why is Jim Pouillon persona non grata at Vox Nova?
No one thought that the political assassination of a pro-life activist directly responsible for saving human lives was a blog-worthy item?
I voted against Senator Obama during the election for a number of reasons and his unequivocal support for abortion was high among them. I am not aware of any credible retraction of his promise to advocate for unrrestricted abortion as he repeatedly presented it to Planned Parenthood.
My brother, a faithful and honorable man, tore his hair out to balance his interest in the unborn with the Mr. Obama’s promise to provide healthcare to all. He voted for Senator Obama as President because he believed that the issue of abortion had reached a political stalemate that could not be affected by the Democratic takeover of government.
I suspect that your view matches my brother’s and charity demands the presumption that faith underlies your support for the Administration.
However, I wonder how much proof that you have been “had” and used will be required before that support fails?
The President’s speech-writers are deft at double-speak. During his address, President Obama continually stated that “nothing [he] proposed would” fund abortion, pay for illegal aliens, determine end of life care, or lead to rationing. Since he hasn’t actually proposed anything and, under the Constitution, cannot draft legislation, this is unquestionably true and indisputably a misrepresentation of both the position and nature of the proposed legislation.
Of the bills in the House, only one of the four could remotely be supported by a faithful Catholic since the other three contain no limitation on funding for abortion. Since only one bill will make it out of the House, it is a good bet that Speaker Pelosi’s final bill will not contain any limitations on abortion funding.
So, I toss the question back to you… Senator Obama went to great lengths to draft Catholics into the Democratic fold with the assertion that a Democratic takeover of government would bring aobut the kind of social support for the poor required by Catholic teaching. We have received what, exactly, that suggests that he intends to fulfill this promise.
You have specifically “called us out” – your fellow Catholics who find in the present Administration and Congress nothing less than a direct assault on their country and faith – without ever explaining why your support is reasonable. If you want to stand “toe to toe” with us, throw a punch – tell us what actions of the Administration and the Congress justify your faith.
G-Veg, perhaps you would be interested in reading my first post here at Vox Nova:
http://vox-nova.com/2009/07/27/tempering-optimism-with-realism-pro-life-liberals-and-obama
I’ll also point out that nowhere in this post did I say that the position of the Administration on abortion is remotely acceptable from a Catholic perspective. In what sense does my statement “I’m all for banding together to ensure that abortion funding is explicitly excluded from any final health care plan” constitute to you an endorsement of the current plan, which, as you say, does fund abortion? I criticize the pro-life movement, of which I consider myself to be a member, because I want us to win, because I want us to be the best advocates for the rights of the unborn that we can, and I see many leaders of the movement undermining that end. You are free to disagree and to give your reasons for doing so, but please do not imply that I am some sort of Obama apologist who is indifferent to the plight of the unborn. You do not even know me.
And yes, I do support the Administration’s health care proposals in principle, contingent upon an explicit exclusion of abortion coverage from any publicly-supported plan. Last time I checked, believing in universal health coverage and recognizing the evil done by insurance companies is not a heresy, nor does it imply that I have the kind of naive “faith” in the Administration of which you accuse me. President Obama is a politician, not a deity. There will be things that he does that I support strongly, and there will be (and have been) things that he does that I oppose strongly.
Now, if you want to talk about unreasonable “faith” in politicians, let’s talk about the pro-life movement and the Republican Party. Several weeks ago, I read a blog post from Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life (a good, sincere, and honorable man who heads a good organization) saying, essentially, that the solution to all of our problems lies in electing Republicans in 2010 and 2012. This confused me, given that allegedly pro-life Republicans held the White House for 20 of the past 28 years, and our regime of legalized abortion remains firmly in place. Might they simply be taking advantage of the unconditional support our movement has given to them for decades? Might we be guilty of passively allowing them to take our votes while refusing to do anything remotely politically courageous on behalf of the unborn? To use your words, “I wonder how much proof that you have been ‘had’ and used will be required before that support fails?”
G-Veg,
You are confused about what is going on in Congress.
There are three House Committee Bills which have passed their respective Committees. None have gone to the Floor. At the Joint Session, the President laid forth his plan. This plan is now being drafted by the Speaker. It will go to the Floor. It will not contain funding for illegals or abortion.
In the Senate, one Bill has passed the HELP Committee. The Finance Committee will report its Bill, probably in a week. Then something similar to what is occurring in the House will happen in the Senate.
The real concern about funding for abortion should be directed towards the private sector insurance companies, if there is a serious interest in curtailing the number of abortions through restrictive measures. The government on this issue is the least grievous offender.
I am not aware of any credible retraction of his promise to advocate for unrrestricted abortion as he repeatedly presented it to Planned Parenthood.
The President (unfortunately) does believe that abortion should be legal. He has also made it clear that he recognizes there are sincere people of good will on both sides of this issue and that, despite his personal beliefs, he is not going to alter the status quo on abortion funding in his health care plan.
Of the bills in the House, only one of the four could remotely be supported by a faithful Catholic since the other three contain no limitation on funding for abortion. Since only one bill will make it out of the House, it is a good bet that Speaker Pelosi’s final bill will not contain any limitations on abortion funding.
Speaker Pelosi has accepted the limitations put in the one bill and has made in order pro-life amendments for an up or down vote when it come to the floor. I expect in the case of a tie on one of the pro-life amendments, she will vote against.
Just for the sake of accuracy, Mickey, the post you credit to Morning’s Minion (“Market Idolatry, Conservative Catholics, and Undermining Pro-Life Efforts in Health Care Reform”) was actually mine. :-)
Ah, I’m sorry! Fixed.
I heard Fr. Pavone on EWTN early in 2008 when it looked like Rudy911 had a lock on the GOP nomination. A woman called in to ask how she should vote if he was the candidate. Pavone said to vote for him because it isn’t about “the person”, it’s about “the party”. I was reminded of the barrage of personal attacks on Kerry 4 years earlier when the prolife communion deniers were out in full force and prolifers screaming for his excommunication. But that was then. Now (early 08) with the GOP likely to have a candidate that made Kerry look like Padre Pio by comparison, it was suddenly not about “the person” but “the party”. Instructions from prolife HQ were to vote for a thrice married, pro abortion, pro gay marriage ex-Catholic. As much as I would like to respect Fr. Pavone, I no longer can. He is definitely being “had” by the Republicans but he is getting tremendous enjoyment from the ride.
Yet, for all his other faults, Fr. Frank is nice to the gays.
Frank: All very good points. I remember that too. I also remember reading somewhere that Fr. Pavone had gone on EWTN Radio and denounced “left-wing kooks” for implying that his hero President Bush was a war criminal. That being said, though he has his faults (as do we all), Priests for Life does do quite a bit of good work, especially with post-abortive women. In fact, I’m pretty sure he himself was the one who converted Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe.
Good post. In this as in so many other areas, the highly politicized pro-life movement– by turning off moderate opinion in both its embrace of hateful speech and its willingness to support so many other awful things — is actually harming the cause of the unborn. It’s time to call them out on that.
It’s time to call them out on that.
They have been called out and they got worse. The time now is simply to part company from them.
“The time now is simply to part company from them.”
Catholic intellectuals should never have gotten tied up with a political movement in the first place. Intellectual integrity always becomes a first victim.
Catholic intellectuals should never have gotten tied up with a political movement in the first place. Intellectual integrity always becomes a first victim.
Are you sure of your phrasing here? It’s as if you mean to refer to all sides, including yourself and your fellow Obama fans, rather than just to Catholics who vote Republican.
Mickey and Kari — this was a post I was intending to do, but didn’t (far too busy these days). Anyway, I’m glad Kari did it instead! I know Michael Sean Winters personally – awesome guy, incredibly energetic, loves the Church deeply.
Anti-bigot,
I suppose my phrasing could be improved. But read against what MM and Kurt wrote I think my words are clear enough.
Though a strong advocate of a culture of life, I have never been comfortable with the strategies and tactics of the pro-life movement from the early eighties on. The language and means employed by advocates like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, and other lesser figures always appeared counterproductive. Yet such people were always in the drivers seat.
When questioned about the wisdom of the Evangelical/Catholic alliance, my Catholic friends who dealt directly with abortion (my field was national security) assured me that all were working towards the same end. I wasn’t so sure. To me, it was obvious that the means one used to achieve a certain objective would eventually become the end that would actually result. But the principle means (restricting behavior through legal devices) contradicted accepted principles of a pluralistic society. Such contradictions would not permit a successful outcome. Thus the use of flawed means doomed the strategy from the outset.
This should have been foreseen.
The U.S. is a pluralist society. Choice is sacrosanct. It is a logical requirement of pluralism. Rather than trying to stop people from choosing altogether, it is necessary to influence HOW people choose. The best way to do this is to build an ethos of love around the mother to alleviate her fears about the future.
Were Catholic intellectuals more attentive to the intrinsic relationships of means to ends they might have recognized earlier on the predicament we face today. Some, of course, will never see it. Plenty already have.
A new direction is about to unfold.