Market Idolatry, Conservative Catholics, and Undermining Pro-Life Efforts in Health Care Reform
National Catholic Reporter published some very insightful commentary by Michael Sean Winters yesterday on how “pro-lifers undermine their cause” in the health care debate. Winters writes,
…But, by demonstrating their determined opposition to any and all of the health care reform efforts pending before Congress, they [conservative Catholic critics of health care reform] undermine the pro-life part of their program. In fact, they play right into the hands of NARAL and NOW and those groups who do want to hijack health care reform to skirt around the Hyde Amendment’s prohibition of federal funds subsidizing abortion services. The administration and the leaders in Congress have no reason to listen to pro-life advocates on abortion if they are going to be opposed to the final bill on other grounds anyway…
He goes on to conclude,
It is strange indeed to see conservative Catholics unwittingly aiding and abetting the agenda of the pro-abortion organizations they oppose. And stranger still that conservatives who spent the last election cycle saying that no political issue mattered as much as abortion are suddenly putting their idolatry of the market before adopting a sound strategy for keeping abortion coverage out of the health care reform effort. They have provided ample reason for the administration and Congress to ignore their pleas on abortion. The may see themselves as the “loyal opposition” but they are not being loyal to the pro-life cause they espouse. They are undermining it.
It’s an important and well-made point, and one that such critics would do well to reflect upon.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
I intend to take the position that if the final health care bill improves by one iota the status quo on abortion policy, all faithful Catholics are morally obligated to support it regardless of any reservations they have, using their prudential judgment, on the rest of Obamacare. They will also be morally obligated (if they were among those who predicted the Obama Administration would unlease a repeal of federal abortion restrictions) to offer to stand in Macy’s window at noon and kiss the President’s …).
…dog Bo (on the lips).
I particularly appreciated the comments of Dr. Schneck. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that I get the chance to take one of his classes here at CUA :)
In all seriousness, though, this is a huge problem. President Obama, though gravely wrong on abortion, is not stupid; he recognizes that he’ll need to compromise if he wants to pass his bill (which is a good plan in many ways). But, as Winters points out, why would he risk pissing off his base by compromising on abortion if it is clear that this would not convince many pro-lifers to support the bill? I can only hope that the Administration is listening to the USCCB on this, and not the radicals who are convinced that because Obama is pro-choice, he is evil incarnate and ANYONE who supports ANYTHING he does (or even expresses an interest in trying to talk with his Administration) is a “pro-abort” who is directly responsible for the deaths of millions of unborn babies.
I think this gets at something I’ve been meaning to bring up – namely, that movement conservatives, both Catholic and otherwise, have been using abortion as a stalking horse to advance the rest of their agenda.
Here’s the thing: when they had the White House and Congress, why didn’t they do more to end abortion on demand? By that I mean, work with mainstream liberal Senators like Ted Kennedy or the late Paul Wellstone – “Look, Ted; I’ll throw insurance lobbyists under the bus and give you national healthcare, if you’ll throw NARAL and Emily’s List under the bus and support the re-criminalization of abortion. Agreed?”
If the Republicans are really so opposed to abortion, why didn’t they express willingness to compromise considerable ground in order to get it banned? I could easily have seen Ted Kennedy being very tempted by such an offer.
Or maybe it’s not national health care; maybe it is some other piece of the liberal-left agenda – strengthened environmental regulation, say, or a more progressive tax sustem. The point is, if Republicans really believed that abortion is like the holocaust, then why aren’t they willing to do practically anything to end it?
Ah, those wicked wicked pro-life people, cause of all our woes! But now that profound thinker, Michael Sean Winters, rides to the rescue.
I wonder if someone will finally note the distinction between health care and health care insurance. The battle is not about health care; it’s about the money.
Gabriel: no one is saying that pro-life people are “wicked.” All of us here are pro-life in the sense that we are opposed to legalized and government-funded abortion. MM’s point is that the approach taken by many members of the pro-life movement is actually making it more likely that the final health care bill will fund abortion. In what sense can this fear be interpreted as an endorsement of abortion?
Mickey – That’s the ongoing tactic of these people. If we criticize any aspect of the pro-life movement — that is, if we exercise self-criticism as pro-lifers — folks like Mr. Austin accuse us of being “pro-aborts.” Better get used it it! ;)
…when they had the White House and Congress, why didn’t they do more to end abortion on demand?
More to end? Bush and Republicans allowed taxpayer funding of abortions and the conservatives applauded.
Kurt: what do you mean by that? I’m just curious.
“If the Republicans are really so opposed to abortion, why didn’t they express willingness to compromise considerable ground in order to get it banned? I could easily have seen Ted Kennedy being very tempted by such an offer.”
Sorry, but that is really naive. The man consistently received 100% ratings from NARAL and PP. That means he wouldn’t support what little the Republicans did/were able to do.
OMB Circular A-76
standmickey writes September 12, 2009 at 6:51 pm
“Gabriel: no one is saying that pro-life people are “wicked.” All of us here are pro-life in the sense that we are opposed to legalized and government-funded abortion”.
But are not otherwise opposed to abortion [baby killing]?
“MM’s point is that the approach taken by many members of the pro-life movement is actually making it more likely that the final health care bill will fund abortion”.
Instead of predicting the future. surely one should make clear opposition to funding of abortion in the present. What of the Mexico City policy, unilaterally reversed by Mr. Obama? Good old U.S. imperialism.
“In what sense can this fear be interpreted as an endorsement of abortion?”
I fear I do not understand this sentence.
Michael J. Iafrate September 12, 2009 at 7:42 pm
“Mickey – That’s the ongoing tactic of these people. If we criticize any aspect of the pro-life movement — that is, if we exercise self-criticism as pro-lifers — folks like Mr. Austin accuse us of being “pro-aborts.” Better get used it it! ;)”
The tactic is to assert a position of someone else without giving references. This has been done time and time again on this site. I believe it is recommended by Saul Alinsky, following the technique of Lenin and Trotsky, when they christened themselves “the majority”.
And concomitant with this technique is to insert oneself into committees [cf. the USCCB] and councils, quietly, discretely, and with an emphasis here and gesture there shift the meaning of discussions. Socrates describes this technique in THE SOPHISTS.
It is like arguing with lawyers or Hegelians. Thus, baby killing has now become a right, and will soon be a duty. Have a look at England.
At which point I bow out of the discussion on this site. Facts and truth seem to be too upsetting.