Their finest hour
Rarely have I been as proud of our Catholic Bishops as I have during the health care debate. Richard M. Doerflinger, a spokesman for the USCCB, was quoted in the New York Times as follows: “We think that providing health care is itself a pro-life thing, and we think that, by and large, providing better health coverage to women could reduce abortions. But we don’t make these decisions statistically, and to get to that good we cannot do something seriously evil.”
The fight for pro-life health care reform is not over. To date, the Senate has not attached Stupak-like language to their version of the bill. They may end up doing so; Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a crucial swing vote and a pro-life Democrat, has indicated that he will oppose the final bill and potentially join a Republican filibuster if abortion funding is not restricted to the same degree as in the House bill. Even if this happens, however, my impression (and correct me if I’m wrong, as I’m not well-versed on Congressional procedure) is that amendments can be stripped off in conference committee. Given that NARAL and Planned Parenthood will not go down without a fight on this issue, and given that pro-choice Democrats do hold the majority, the eventual outcome is still very much uncertain.
But there is no doubt that the passage of the House bill with the Stupak amendment was a huge victory for the pro-life movement. It strengthened the hand of pro-life Democrats in the Senate, and at the same time reminded our leaders that most Americans (and many Representatives, including those who self-identify as pro-choice) are opposed to federal abortion funding in any form. And as the NYT article indicates, the credit for this victory goes largely to the USCCB. They’ve endured scorn from both the Left and the Right for their uncompromising stance in support of both the right to life and the right to adequate medical care. Those of us who are interested in simply being Catholics, and not “liberal Catholics” or “conservative Catholics,” should be proud of our shepherds.
Comments are closed.
We shall see. I have found the bishops opposition to be largely incoherent and non-responsive. The Stupak amendment could be seen as the product of a strategy, but it is closer to a last minute latching on so that victory could be claimed. The reality at the moment is that the amendment was supported overwhelmingly by people that would not support the amended bill and will not support the bill out of conference. We should have few illusions that the interests of those unsupportive of any reform legislation will be catered.
While I have no affection for Planned Parenthood or NARAL, their objections are politically reasonable. As amended, this bill is more restrictive of abortion than present practice. Being in the majority, they could easily demand full subsidization. They have been willing to settle for the status quo. Since they are the ones providing the marginal votes, I would expect the bill coming out of conference to be more circumscribed.
It seems to me that the USCCB, in becoming so directly involved in details of the anti-abortion battle as to endorse a particular amendment, has weakened its moral authority and especially its message about the necessity to cover immigrants. While the USCCB claims not to have endorsed the House bill, it seems to me that in effect it has.
Bernard Dauenhauer on dotCommonweal said in a much more learned way than I could something similar to what I had been thinking:
Cardinal George, in his press release Cardinal George Lauds House Action to Ban Federal Funds for Abortion; Promises Vigilance as Senate Pursues Health Care Reform, Wary About Affect on Poor, Elderly has exactly one sentence about immigrants: “We remain deeply concerned that immigrants be treated fairly and not lose the health care coverage that they now have.” That doesn’t even begin to hint at the shabby treatment of immigrants by almost everyone involved in health care reform, including President Obama.
Michael Sean Winters had a blog entry over at America titled The House Vote: A Huge Triumph for the Church. One might ask if it is a good thing, in American democracy, for the Church to have a huge triumph in the House of Representatives.
One more thought. It seems to me we saw a lot of moral arguments during the presidential campaign about cooperation with evil, remote material cooperation, proportionate reason, and so on. A lot of it was very poorly done and seemed more like attempts at coercion rather than persuasion. But at least there were arguments. It strikes me that there has been very little in the way of argument in the language of moral theology about the various ways to keep from using government funds from paying for abortion.
Would it have been (or be, if the Stupak language doesn’t survive) morally impermissible to have a system in which private dollars and government funds going for insurance coverage are kept strictly separate from one another? Isn’t something like this principle currently in effect when it comes to abortion and Medicaid? Or when it comes to massive funding of Planned Parenthood by the federal government?
Oooops, looks like not only will the Stupak amendment face challenges in the Senate and conference. Now the beloved President, the supposed abortion reducer, who is supposedly not the radical abortion supporter he claimed to be, took his very first opportunity to to slam the Stupak Amendment as taking away women’s insurance choices. http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-this-is-a-health-care-bill-not-an-abortion-bill/ Oh yes we can all keep our same insurance which in the House bill means no one can, except let’s make sure, let’s go out of our way to guarantee, that people with abortion coverage get to keep that.
And we are to believe that Obama deserves pro-life credentials because of the Stupak amendment, which he is trying to undermine right out of the box? What a joke.
Matt, who mentioned Obama?
“While I have no affection for Planned Parenthood or NARAL, their objections are politically reasonable. As amended, this bill is more restrictive of abortion than present practice.”
I don’t understand this criticism. Shouldn’t the bill be as restrictive of abortion as possible? Isn’t a “status quo” position presented by PP or NARAL entirely unacceptable and something to be fought against?
Matt,
Go back and read the President’s statement. You might criticize it for being vague but it is clearly conciliatory and makes no slam of Stupak.
M.Z.: I cannot see how support for the Stupak Amendment was “last minute latching” when it was basically the same language urged by the USCCB for months in both the House and the Senate.
“As amended, this bill is more restrictive of abortion than present practice.” That is not true with regards to federal practice. That was the point of the amendment, to preserve the status quo in federal policy.
Regarding the immigrant issue, we need to remember what the USCCB wants regarding treatment of immigrants is not the status quo in federal policy. They are asking for a change in policy more favorable to immigrants than existing policy. That is a tougher political battle and USCCB, rightly, needs to prioritize its battles.
Sure, there are things we could question, but, all in all, this was one of their finest hours.
Not you Mickey, though you did ask what kinds of challenges the Stupak language will face. Prompt and decisive pposition by the President, who repeats the talking points of NARAL, is an even bigger obstacle. A couple of posts ago MM said that the Stupak amendment itself shows that Obama is definitely not the abortion radical pro-lifers say he is based on his record, and it was recommended that Obama support Stupak. At America, Michael Sean Winters suggested that since Obama could have but didn’t stop the Stupak language, that proves he isn’t the most pro-abortion president ever.
Matt,
what do you expect half the country is comfortable with the current arrangements regarding Abortion –
Obama indeed very much included. While the moniker “No federal funding for Abortion” will surface over and over again – otherwise most Abortions ARE not against the law around America the Beautiful – and yes this has consequences. And yes Politicians will act/talk accordingly.
While I have no affection for Planned Parenthood or NARAL, their objections are politically reasonable. As amended, this bill is more restrictive of abortion than present practice. Being in the majority, they could easily demand full subsidization. They have been willing to settle for the status quo. Since they are the ones providing the marginal votes, I would expect the bill coming out of conference to be more circumscribed.”
Well, that’s the wonderfully fun thing about all this: That there are just enough pro-life Democrats who have pledged not to support the bill if it doesn’t contain the Stupak ammendment (and indeed, would probably be a bit relieved not to feel they need to support the bill, since they’re in heavily red districts likely to throw them out for supporting the bill at all) that if the Stupak ammendment gets stripped the bill could very well lose on a revote. Sure, most of the Stupak supporters voted against the bill, but the margin of passage was so narrow that it only takes a handful of pro-life Democrats exiting the boat for the bill to go down in flames.
So yes, one can claim that the pro-abortion lobby “deserves” not to see the goalposts moved on the issue, but it basically comes down to whether they care more about subsidizing abortion or getting a health care bill passed. Heads they lose, tails we win.
Personally, I shall enjoy watching it all play out.
Shouldn’t the bill be as restrictive of abortion as possible? Isn’t a “status quo” position presented by PP or NARAL entirely unacceptable and something to be fought against?
Certainly, any progress that can be made against abortion should be made. That progress is only made if a bill is passed though.
I cannot see how support for the Stupak Amendment was “last minute latching” when it was basically the same language urged by the USCCB for months in both the House and the Senate.
The Stupak amendment was seen as necessary sometime around 48 hours prior to the vote. Prior to that the USCCB (and bishops in specific) had been making statements about the bill that were, to be generous, not recognized as true by all parties.
Darwin: You do not care if the health care bill passes, so you can be ambivalent. If this bill does not pass, we will not see another health care reform bill for at least a decade if not two. The choices then will be even more difficult and the options less pleasant. I do not foresee any entertainment value occurring with the hijacking of this bill over abortion.
“Certainly, any progress that can be made against abortion should be made. That progress is only made if a bill is passed though.”
MZ,
That’s not correct. This is not a debate to pass a bill on new abortion restrictions, such that give-and-take incrementalism and compromise is required to achieve a slightly better abortion regime than we have currently. This is a debate to create new elements and new reforms in our healthcare system – and if the bill does not pass, the abortion regime remains exactly the same. Why shouldn’t we require as many restrictions on abortion as possible in the new reforms? Why grant PP and NARAL any leeway in the new reforms?
I suppose you may think the reforms are so necessary that they trump an uncompromising stand on abortion restrictions. If that’s the case, I disagree with you (and I think the US bishops conference would too).
Along with this blog, I read (more or less regularly) First Things, TalkingPointsMemo, Matt Yglesias, and Inside Catholic, and I find the discussions going on at these sites to be especially symptomatic of how ideological differences within the ground ideology of Liberalism preclude anybody from recognizing that the Bishops have articulated, and continue to articulate, a consistent position as regards health care and abortion that far outstrips what people regard as viable from either the Left or the Right.
On the Left, you have people whose allegiance to “choice” would commit them to refusing health reform *at all* if Stupak were part of the package; on the Right, you have people who spent months saying that their *real* problem with health reform was abortion, but who now are saying that, even if health care were pro-life, it (1) would not *really* be pro-life (and interesting position) or (2) it is still wrong for other reasons having nothing to do with abortion but with the government taking action at all (Joseph Bottum et al.).
In some ways the USCCB has succeeded, but their success on this one issue illustrates how far the Church has failed in educating its flock into a truly *Catholic* understanding of the common good: imagine if all American Catholics were *united* in wanting what the Bishops have always wanted. Is that a Utopian dream? Why?
Why shouldn’t we require as many restrictions on abortion as possible in the new reforms?
To the best of my knowledge, no one who actually supports the House bill when it includes the Stupak amendment, but opposes it when does not, has made a clear argument to support their position in either of two ways. The first way would be in the language of moral theology and cooperation with evil. The second way would be simply that none of the other non-Stupak solutions is consistent with the Hyde amendment.
The Stupak amendment, it seems to me, is not “abortion neutral,” but advances the pro-life cause. Can someone who actually supports the House bill make a reasoned argument as to why the House bill (and health care reform in its entirety) should be abandoned if the Stupak amendment doesn’t stand?
Darwin, I agree with your analysis, and I think the situation is even more stark. The bill only passed by 3 in the House. But 42 members voted for Stupak AND for the final bill. Switch any 3 of those and the final bill loses. Cao will certainly switch if you remove Stupak, and then you don’t even need all the sponsors to add up to three. Meanwhile, pro-aborts in the House now claim that they have 42 members pledged to vote against the final bill if Stupak is KEPT. We’re not sure how many of those voted for final passage, but again they only need 3. So the only way to square this circle is for a compromise, which basically means the Capps “we’ll federally fund it but declare it isn’t federal” Humpty Dumpty language. But if that compromise was likely last week, its stock has dropped significantly. It was the pro-aborts who showed that at the end of the day they are willing to compromise to pass a bill. What happened this weekend was precisely a rejection of compromise on the pro-life side, and as a result of pro-lifers rejecting compromise, they passed their amendment 240-194, a huge margin, and they even passed the final bill. This encourages pro-life Democrats now more than ever to keep the government out of funding insurance that covers abortion. The Republicans who voted with Stupak unanimously will be glad to do it again when Stupak is removed in conference. And Stupak will be glad to stand with them again–they stood with him on principle when it meant their other goal (bill defeat) was lost, so Stupak will stand with them on principle when it means his other goal (bill passage) is lost. That’s what people get when they are willing to stand on pro-life principle, instead of deceiving themselves into thinking that they have Catholic principles when their so-called principles aren’t “deal-breakers” after all and instead they will vote to achieve their other goals at the expense of their principles.
This is why Thales is right and MZ is wrong–you don’t need a bill to keep Obamacare from funding abortion plans. That goal is reached either by Stupak, or by the final bill failing.
MZ,
Give me some credit: I’m not ambivalent to whether the bill passes, I actively hope it won’t. I think it will generally be destructive towards the people it is designed to help, and won’t do anyone huge amounts of good. (Note, if people thought this kind of system was just the most wonderful thing in the world, people would be moving into Mass. rather than moving out of it. As it is, the excellence of this type of system doesn’t seem to be enough to draw people to the state the say, say, the job and housing markets draw people to Texas.)
But you must admit, there’s a certain game theory charm to the whole thing — especially watching to see if the pro-abortion faction is more set on abortion than they are on health care. Aftering being told for years that I must not care about people after they are born, it is interesting to see if liberal Democrats care so much about killing the unborn that they’ll refuse to provide health insurance reform which they appear to believe would actually do someone some good simply because they don’t want to risk the insurance funding which currently only helps pay for 13% of abortions.
David,
There really is no way for the bill to be abortion neutral so long as it includes a public option. A public option has to either cover abortion (which would favor abortion), or not (which would favor the pro-life cause).
wj,
I could hardly agree more. The bishop’s position has seemed the obvious one to me all along. I simply do not understand the partisan wrangling attending this issue for people who claim to put their faith before their politics. In fact, it nauseates me.
I don’t feel abortion has hijacked health-care reform, it seems to me to be a legitimate issue in regards to health-care. I really do hope something is worked out so we do get satisfactory health care, without giving any further support to actions that are intrinsically evil.
Brett,
With all due respect, that appears to be in part because you, like the bishops, assume that because the bill is _designed_ to make health care more affordable and accessible to people, that therefore this will in fact be the result. What many of those conservatives opposing the bill dispute (I hesitate to say most, because frankly many of the claims against it a bit hysterical or nonsensical — ignorance is a constant across the policital spectrum and I fear my side is no more free of it than the other) is whether the bill would indeed have the advertised effects.
There really is no way for the bill to be abortion neutral so long as it includes a public option.
Blackadder,
We are talking about far more than the public option here. We’re talking about the insurance exchange. We may not even wind up with a public option.
I simply do not understand the partisan wrangling attending this issue for people who claim to put their faith before their politics.
brett,
It seems to me that it is a grave problem to put faith before politics when the matter at hand is political — the crafting of a bill. Also, the USCCB’s argument regarding the bill without the Stupak Amendment was not a religious argument.
Surely it is not a matter of the Catholic faith that the Stupak Amendment more faithfully inserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment into the House bill than, say, the Capps Amendment. The American bishops have no special competence in interpreting the Hyde Amendment, and there is no reason why any legislator should be morally bound to accept the USCCB interpretation of the Hyde Amendment if they do not find it convincing wholly apart from the fact that it comes from the USCCB.
Also, I fail to see that the Catholic faith dictates to any members of the House how they must vote if the bill comes out of conference with something less than the Stupak Amendment. The choice of whether or not to procure an abortion or directly participate in procuring or providing an abortion is not, for Catholics, a matter of prudential decision. It is clearly forbidden. The matter of how legislators must deal with the issue of insurance coverage of abortion in a particular bill involves prudential decisions, and I fail to see how anyone can say otherwise.
As I have argued before, many (probably most) of us with employer-provided insurance who are contributing something toward that coverage are contributing in a fairly direct way to paying for abortions. If the bill comes out of conference with a compromise that is less restrictive than the Stupak Amendment, it will almost certainly put a distance between taxpayers and abortion much greater than the distance between many of us who already have private insurance through our employers and abortion. I don’t see the bishops requiring employees to forego the insurance their employers provide if it covers abortion.
(turning right):
Darwin,
I understand that there may be all kinds of problems with the bill that prevent it from achieving its goals. My concern with the right is that, rather than suggesting ways to improve the bill they have largely suggested that it is, in principle, impossible to solve the health care crisis by an action of the state. This seems to me to put neoconservative politics above Catholicism. Catholicism makes no such claims about the inability of the state to solve systemic problems in a society. Shoot, it’s the right-wingers who demand less subsidiarity in the running of the Church itself.
(turning left):
David,
I really don’t understand how the fact that we are dealing with a prudential judgment issue rather than something more clear cut makes it impossible for the bishops to support an amendment disallowing federal funds for abortion. I’m afraid I just don’t find any reason why your premise (which I can accept) leads to this conclusion.
And, for the record, I am in full agreement that Catholics should be far more concerned than they are about buying private insurance from companies that cover abortion. But if that is a genuine concern, how can that be a reason not to be concerned about having the government pay for it? It seems that we should be concerned about both. Pointing out one problem does not prove that something almost identical is not a problem!?! I just don’t get this line of argument.
brett,
The bishops, I suppose, are free to support any amendment they want. But when they support the Stupak Amendment on the grounds that it is the way to make the Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 consistent with the Hyde Amendment, they are not making a religious argument or speaking with the moral authority of bishops. It does not make any sense to me to say that a Catholic must put faith before politics and give weight to a position taken by bishops that is not based on the Catholic faith.
I would also note that it is already impermissible for federal funds to be used for abortion. The Stupak Amendment was only one of several interpretations of how the bill could avoid using federal funds for abortion. If the bishops had made an argument that the Capps Amendment amounted to unacceptable remote material cooperation with abortion and the Stupak Amendment did not, then they would have been making an argument that should carry weight among Catholics. But as I have said before, I have seen no detailed, careful arguments couched in moral terms about the various approaches to abortion permissible (especially if compromise becomes necessary) in health care reform. It goes without saying federal funds may not be used for abortion. That is the law of the land. The situation is much more complicated than that.
Pointing out one problem does not prove that something almost identical is not a problem!?! I just don’t get this line of argument.
Someone once said, “How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,’ when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye.”
Catholic women have an abortion rate slightly higher than the general population. Certainly millions of Catholics are paying some premiums for employer-provided insurance that go toward abortion. The fact that the Catholic Church cannot convince its own members not to have abortions, and the fact that it asks nothing of those already funding abortion through premiums paid for employer-provided health insurance, the fact that (as far as I know) it has never had a campaign to urge large companies not to provide abortion coverage, the fact that it has never (as far as I know) waged a campaign to get insurance companies not to cover abortion, the fact that it has never (as far as I know) laid down moral guidelines for Catholics who work in the insurance industry about what would be impermissible cooperation with abortion, lead me to believe that the Catholic Church is overly concerned with the politics of abortion and much less concerned about principles that apply in millions of people’s everyday lives.
There is a lot of lip service paid to the idea of a “seamless garment,” but the seamless-garment approach would require attempting to apply the same zeal to other instances of remote material cooperation with abortion as to the treatment of abortion in a health care reform bill. It would also require, in my opinion, much more attention to the issue of health care for immigrants. It seems to me it is not up to the Catholic bishops to talk of bowing to political reality.
David,
I am in full agreement that one of the best things the Catholic Church could do to fight abortion would be to take serious measures aimed at reducing abortion among Catholics.
I agree with much else that you write. I simply don’t see how any of the above means the bishops shouldn’t support Stupak. Even the quote from Jesus doesn’t help me to get there. Taken to its logical conclusion as you employ it, it suggests that no Catholic can ever try to fight any evil in society without being called a hypocrite. One wonders, “can the bishops support anything, including better health care for immigrants, given their imperfect record?”
Taken to its logical conclusion as you employ it, it suggests that no Catholic can ever try to fight any evil in society without being called a hypocrite.
brett,
How do you arrive at that conclusion? You are only a hypocrite if you urge a moral standard for others that you do not adhere to yourself. I am sure there are many areas in which the bishops and Catholics in general practice what they preach. But it seems to me anyone who is insisting on an ultra-strict interpretation (such as the Stupak Amendment) of the Hyde Amendment for the health care reform bill while paying premiums in any way toward a policy (or possibly even an insurance company) that provides abortion is, indeed, a hypocrite.
Those who fund abortion more directly themselves than the House bill would do indeed have beams in their own eyes. It seems to me the bishops and almost everyone else are ignoring this entirely. I am not saying one has to be perfect in order to try to right a wrong. I am saying that if you try to right a wrong and allow yourself to commit that wrong yourself, and to a greater degree than the people you are exhorting to change, you are a hypocrite.
I wonder how many people have even checked their own insurance coverage to see if they are contributing to the funding of abortion.
David,
Hmmm, I suppose one is a hypocrite to the degree that one issue parallels another. I don’t suspect any of us think that the situations are exactly parallel and I imagine that arguing about which issues are parallel enough to qualify one as a hypocrite would be unproductive.
In any case, I fully grant that buying insurance privately that somehow finances abortion is a big problem. My main difference with you seems to be that I think that this should be taken as a call to action. As far as I can tell you are using it as a call to inaction. That I can’t understand.
I think we might acknowledge there are both symptoms and causes of the tolerance of abortion in our society. A good doctor focuses on curing the causes of an illness more than treating the symptoms.
I don’t believe the bishops can bind Catholics on a particular piece of legislation. Yet I do believe they should be active in helping shape legislation in a positive way and that Catholics should give them great respect as they in turn give great respect for the private judgment of the lay faithful.
The bishops have asked for universal health care since 1919 (long before the Democratic Party took up this cause). Now they have a House bill that answers that call along with the Stupak Amendment, a wonderful development.
The point of the Stupak amendment is that it advances the anti-abortion cause. The issue of what is taxpayer funding is a side show. I don’t believe there is one member of Congress (on either the pro-life or the abortion rights side of this question) who would sign an oath applying the criteria they are using in this debate to all future questions of what is government funding on alll other issues.
My main difference with you seems to be that I think that this should be taken as a call to action. As far as I can tell you are using it as a call to inaction. That I can’t understand.
brett,
I am just making observations, not calling anyone to action or inaction.
But I don’t expect to see a call to action from the pro-life movement or the religious right in general for each individual to make sure his or her insurance premiums don’t contribute to abortion. It seems to me that all the hot-button issues — the “nonnegotiable ones” such as abortion and same-sex marriage — the goal is to prevent others from engaging in behavior the right disapproves of. It is not a call to action to see what the right can do collectively or as individuals. It is a call to action, requiring no sacrifices on their part, to try to control the actions of others.
The point of the Stupak amendment is that it advances the anti-abortion cause. The issue of what is taxpayer funding is a side show.
Kurt,
This is such a disarming statement, and no doubt true, that there doesn’t seem to be much of a point (if there ever was) in attempting further rational discussion.
If the Capps Amendment is “too cute by half” or a “disingenuous accounting trick,” but (as in the Cleveland vouchers case) giving school vouchers to parents who then choose to use them to send their kids to religious schools is not taxpayer money being spent on religious education, then it’s really just a matter of who has the votes.
I have posted this in another thread on Vox Nova but can’t resist posting it here as well. In fact, I am thinking of posting it in every thread! It’s from Politico: