Today’s Hero, Tomorrow’s Villain

Henry’s position on the advocacy of some pro-life groups for Scott Brown makes sense, and I tend to agree with it. For better or for worse, Brown is now a nationally known figure, and some pro-lifers and organizations participated in his ascension. Whether he decides some day to run for president is unknown, but it’s not out of the question. If he decides to run, he’ll need to appeal to the pro-lifers within the GOP, and he can now point to concrete endorsements from pro-life groups to establish his credentials. He may not even need to pull a Romney and switch his views. After all, during the previous Republican primary, Rudy Giuliani’s pro-choice views were much more accepted on the stage than Ron Paul’s anti-war views. Brown’s win enhances that acceptability. I’m not saying pro-lifers had no good reasons to support Brown over Coakley, but their victory today could undermine their cause down the road. Certain issues of the day may be black and white, but the act of voting surely isn’t. I wouldn’t celebrate yet.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 22nd, 2010 at 2:36 pm and is filed under Abortion, Democracy, Kyle R. Cupp, Politics, Pro-Life, Voting. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

128 Responses to “Today’s Hero, Tomorrow’s Villain”

Morning's Minion says:

January 22, 2010 at 2:47 pm

Like Giuliani, Brown seems the worst of both worlds – pro-abortion and pro-torture.
Kyle R. Cupp says:

January 22, 2010 at 2:49 pm

And there was much rejoicing.
David Nickol says:

January 22, 2010 at 3:13 pm

The little bit I have seen from Brown so far has not frightened me. He seems, at least for the moment, to be someone who is not a rabid ideologue. I will be deeply disappointed if he manages to torpedo health care reform, but he made the point that Massachusetts has already reformed health care, and there was concern about how federal health care reform would affect what Massachusetts has already done. He said he felt his job as a senator was first to seek what’s best for Massachusetts, and then for the country.

He has made a much more favorable impression so far than Sarah Palin has since she rose to national fame. As for being pro-abortion and pro-torture, I’m not sure how much (if anything) the Senate is going to be called to do on those two issues, particularly torture.
DarwinCatholic says:

January 22, 2010 at 3:39 pm

I don’t think Brown would stand the metaphorical snowflakes chance in the primaries. Giuliani was totally DOA as a potential nominee, mostly due to social conservatives. Brown would be too. The fact that he got regional support from pro-lifers in MA would make no difference.
johnmcg says:

January 22, 2010 at 4:00 pm

Part of the rationale is that Brown would be a vote for a pro-life Supreme Court justice, but I’m not so sure.

If Brown is facing re-election, and his opponent is poised to run a series of ads against this “pro-choice” Senator who voted to confirm a justice who would overturn Roe, are we so sure he’d vote to confirm?
Kyle R. Cupp says:

January 22, 2010 at 4:25 pm

David,

He has made a much more favorable impression so far than Sarah Palin has since she rose to national fame.

I can’t disagree with that.

Darwin,

I’m not so sure. I’ve noticed a lot of enthusiastic support for him from pro-life friends who live outside Massachusetts, and I hear that he’s being upheld as a pro-life hero by some people at the DC March for Life. Granted, these examples may not mean much, and support for Brown among social conservatives may be minimal now and in the long run, but I’m not yet ready to bet against his nomination someday.

Johnmcg,

Has Brown explained his views on Roe? I got the impression from his campaign website that he favored legalized abortion, but perhaps he’d prefer the legal question be answered at the state level.
johnmcg says:

January 22, 2010 at 4:52 pm

What I’ve read is that he has “no problem” with Roe.

That doesn’t mean he’d block the nomination of a pro-life justice, but I think it would be foolish to assume we wouldn’t, as well.
David Nickol says:

January 22, 2010 at 4:57 pm

Has Brown explained his views on Roe?

From Time Magazine:

“Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and I don’t plan on overturning it, but I’ve always felt that, you know, I’m against partial-birth abortions and believe in parental consent, a strong parental-notification law.”
— The Boston Globe, Nov. 20, 2009

This is from Boston.com:

And though he has previously said he recognizes Roe v. Wade, the court ruling that legalized abortion, as the law of the land, he won the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life as an expected “prolife vote in the Senate.’’

“I believe – and he has stated – that he would vote for a [Supreme Court] nominee who would be opposed to Roe v. Wade,’’ said John Rowe, who heads the antiabortion group’s political action committee. Brown’s campaign says he would be willing to do so, but he does not view abortion as a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee either way.
Pinky says:

January 22, 2010 at 5:46 pm

McCain had something like 1500 delegates at the 2008 Republican Convention, Paul had 14, and Giuliani didn’t have any. While I am concerned about the pro-choice voice in the Republican Party, it hasn’t proven to be a major influence. Besides, a state senator with a couple of years in the US Senate isn’t going to attract any presidential attention.
phosphorious says:

January 22, 2010 at 7:10 pm

“The little bit I have seen from Brown so far has not frightened me. . .

Yeah, but I assume you voted for Bush twice.
Henry Karlson says:

January 22, 2010 at 7:20 pm

Kyle

I think something very Orwellian has happened with this election: pro-choice is now the pro-life choice.
David Nickol says:

January 22, 2010 at 9:59 pm

Yeah, but I assume you voted for Bush twice.

phosphorius,

In the first presidential election in which I voted, I voted for the Republican candidate. It was one of the worst mistakes of my life. I have never voted for a Republican for president since then. I am 63 years old.

The three rules of life
1. Always suspect you may be wrong.
2. Treat anybody different from you as if they were better than you.
3. Never vote Republican.

I have violated rule 3 on occasion, but only for local elections. My congressman is Jerry Nadler, and I couldn’t ask for a better one.

I was pleasantly surprised by Scott Brown’s victory speech, because I was expecting him to sound like Sarah Palin, and he didn’t. We really hardly know him, but based on the very little I have seen so far, there are many other Republicans in the Senate that seem worse. And I think if he wants to get reelected in Massachusetts, he’s not going to be as far to the right as many other Republicans in the Senate or House.
Ronald King says:

January 23, 2010 at 9:00 am

I cringe every time Sarah Palin speaks. I actually feel sorry for her and her followers.
I do not see any light in politics that I would want to follow. I see darkness, feel heaviness, and hear hatred whenever politics enters faith and we seek a solution through this system.
David, I am 63 also and nothing has changed. Competition continues to be our problem-solving style. Beliefs still create competition. The extroverts still create the rules of engagement and the introverts who join them vicariously believe they now have a voice of power that can change the world, but, in the process lose themselves.
The mutated neurotypical extroverts have contaminated faith and have created a religion of tradition caught in a materialistic struggle defined by the term the “church militant”. Reason is their god but love is their propaganda. Without the vulnerability of an identity attached to heart we have what we have now.
Theology, sociology and philosophy that do not understand the psychology of the heart of the human being create systems that are competitive instead of cooperative, black and white, us and them, enemy and friend, etc.
McGovern, Bush, Obama, have led me to believe that I am finished with the political solution.
Scream loud then follow that with:
The Who–”Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…”
Steve says:

January 23, 2010 at 10:32 am

“Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and I don’t plan on overturning it, but I’ve always felt that, you know, I’m against partial-birth abortions and believe in parental consent, a strong parental-notification law.”

I don’t know where Brown is coming from, but I have heard candidates are are truly pro-life speak like this because they are running in progressive strongholds. I don’t know if that’s the case here. I just sayin’.

I am glad Brown won in Mass considering what we’ve had there for the past 40 years or so, and considering what we would have gotten had he lost. But if he truly is a pro-abort, he won’t get to second base in a presidential primary.

By the way, does anyone here truly think that Coakley was the better choice? If so, why?
Kurt says:

January 23, 2010 at 11:22 am

Senator Elect Brown I am sure is a nice man and a reasonable person. He is up for re-election in 2012 and I am sure during the course of those 3 years he will fit in closely with his fellow New England Republican Senators Snowe and Collins.

However, in the short run it is also clear that he had no intention of “fixing” or improving the proposed health care legislation. His actions will to to prevent 30 million Americans from getting health insurance.

It is his vote to prevent 30 million Americans from getting health insurance and not his views on abortion that has won him “a lot of enthusiastic support for him from pro-life friends who live outside Massachusetts” and the reason “he’s being upheld as a pro-life hero by some people at the DC March for Life.”

Again, the actually existing Pro-Life Movement is a force for injustice in our society. It is a political force to deny 30 million Americans health insurnace.

To paraphrase the slogan “You Can’t Be Catholic and Pro-Choice”, you can’t be for universal health insurance and part of the Pro-Life Movement.
Steve says:

January 23, 2010 at 2:16 pm

It is his vote to prevent 30 million Americans from getting health insurance and not his views on abortion that has won him “a lot of enthusiastic support for him from pro-life friends who live outside Massachusetts”

Everyone that voted for or supported Brown would rather that those 30 million just die and reduce the “surplus population”, right?

Or maybe, just maybe, could it be that most of those people truly do want to provide health care to the uninsured, but simply think that the democrats’ way of doing it is convoluted? Maybe they think that instead of forcing 300 million Americans into a socialistic health care government take over scheme, it might be better to focus on covering just the 30 million?

Naw. The majority of Americans, especially “pro-life” Americans, and the evil conspiracy driven organizations which represent them, are just plain ignorant, or evil – or both. If only they all fell in line with the world according to Vox Nova. Then we would have the venerable Martha Coakley in Ted Kennedy’s (blessed be his name) seat and everything would be true, good and beautiful. Sigh.
Pinky says:

January 23, 2010 at 2:31 pm

Sure you can, Kurt. Just not the current package.
David Nickol says:

January 23, 2010 at 3:21 pm

Sure you can, Kurt. Just not the current package.

Pinky,

What can the opponents of the current legislation support that would bring the United States close to universal health care?
David Nickol says:

January 23, 2010 at 3:47 pm

However, in the short run it is also clear that he had no intention of “fixing” or improving the proposed health care legislation. His actions will to to prevent 30 million Americans from getting health insurance.

Kurt,

Here’s my concern, as someone up until now who has been very supportive of trying to get this legislation passed. As I have said before, David Axelrod and other Democrats have acknowledged that the majority of Americans respond to pollsters that they oppose the current legislation. Axelrod and others explain that people think they don’t like the legislation, but they actually do like what’s in the legislation, and they will be pleased with it and cling to it tenaciously once the legislation gets passed. This seems to me reasonably plausible.

However, when will the American people see the benefits of the legislation and realize that they were wrong to oppose it? The provisions of the legislation are implemented gradually, with the really important benefits (or so it seems to me) coming in 2013. Meanwhile, we have the 2010 and 2012 elections coming up. Should the Democrats somehow pass the current legislation or something close to it, I don’t expect the Republicans to suddenly start praising health care reform and explaining to the American people that actually it is good legislation, and if they just wait, they will see the benefits. I expect if health care reform passes, what we are seeing now from Republicans criticizing the legislation and making accusations about death panels and socialized medicine will increase exponentially.

If people in a blue state like Massachusetts are this freaked out, what about the rest of the country? And if they are incorrect about the legislation, when will they wake up and realize the Democrats are right and the Republicans are wrong? By November 2010? By November 2012? By 2018 when the last parts of the legislation are implemented?

My basic question is this: No matter how good the current legislation, what will be the effect of passing it without popular support? And if that support will eventually materialize, how is that going to happen, and when?

The thing that seems much more important to me than what kind of senator Scott Brown will be is the fact that the voters of Massachusetts elected him with a 5-point margin of victory. Democrats don’t have popular support. Pushing through the current health care legislation without popular support may be noble, and Americans may come to appreciate it, but what will be the consequences for the Democratic party and everything else on the Democratic agenda for the next 2 year, 4 years, or 8 years?
Steve says:

January 23, 2010 at 5:20 pm

What can the opponents of the current legislation support that would bring the United States close to universal health care?

Comsidering that the current legislation still will not cover over 12 million who do not currently have health coverage, I wonder what can supporters of the current legislation support that would bring universal coverage?
Steve says:

January 23, 2010 at 5:22 pm

Make that – “Considering…”
Kurt says:

January 23, 2010 at 6:12 pm

Pinky,

I am so awaiting your response to David.

Steve,

Everyone that voted for or supported Brown would rather that those 30 million just die and reduce the “surplus population”, right?

No. But the impetus behind the opposition to universal coverage is to keep a portion of the workforce and the reserve workforce insecure, compliant and fearful.

Or maybe, just maybe, could it be that most of those people truly do want to provide health care to the uninsured, but simply think that the democrats’ way of doing it is convoluted?

Then you would think that they would put forward such a proposal. That they have not is evidence for my position.

Maybe they think that instead of forcing 300 million Americans into a socialistic health care government take over scheme, it might be better to focus on covering just the 30 million?

And that statement just further proves my point. The Democratic plan DOES NOT force 300 million Americans into a socialistic health plan. It preserves employer based health care for those who have it and would expands it for an additional 2 million people.

It makes a modest expansion of Medicaid for the near poor.

With certain exemptions, it requires everyone else to obtain private insurance for themselves and their dependent children. It offers tax credits and vouchers for those for who it would not otherwise be affordable. It creates Exchanges so that private insuranace companies can sell individual policies without the fear that if they do not cherry pick, their competitors will.

As I said before, if this is a government take over of health care, then the DC Opportunity Scholarship program the Archdiocese is pushing for so hard is a government take over of the Catholic schools.

Naw. The majority of Americans, especially “pro-life” Americans, and the evil conspiracy driven organizations which represent them, are just plain ignorant, or evil – or both.

I would lean towards seeing the rank and file of those opposed to HCR as misinformed. The organizations including the NRTLC show more evidence of being truly evil.

David,

That is a fair question. The Right Wing and the NRTLC have pulled out all of the stops because they know that once 30 million Americans get health insurnace, it will be impossible to take it away from them and they dread the thought of universal coverage.

I think we can build popular support for HCR. The internal polling done by the unions and others showed Coakley down by 9-10 points before the election. We cut that in half on election day.

I spoke with a Midwestern congressman Friday. His own constituents have sense on HCR but I told him that if I was a member of Congress, on this issue I would be proud to do what is right even if it put my seat at risk. I mean, I would quit my own job today and live on mac and cheese the rest of my life if it meant we could get health insuranace for 30 million Americans.

I am not really sure what else on the Democratic agenda is more important than ending the scandal of 30 million uninsured in what is the greatest country in the world.

At the begining of this year, I said to my friends, if we can get HCR, EFCA, ENDA and a vote for DC, I may retire.
Steve says:

January 23, 2010 at 10:09 pm

the impetus behind the opposition to universal coverage is to keep a portion of the workforce and the reserve workforce insecure, compliant and fearful.

So what else is new? So is the impetus behind alien abduction, one world government and black helicopters.

But really, perhaps you should consider that some people really do think they have good reasons to oppose government health care. Really.

Then you would think that they would put forward such a proposal. That they have not is evidence for my position.

But the fact is that the democratic leadership has not allowed the public, and even much of congress, republican and democrat, to be involved in the development of the proposals.

Why don’t the *democrats*, (you know, the party with majorities in both houses and with a president in the white house,) put forth such a proposal? -And, if this new universal health care is all about covering the uninsured, then why will it still leave over 12 million uninsured? I dunno, maybe because it really isn’t about covering the uninsured?

The Democratic plan DOES NOT force 300 million Americans into a socialistic health plan.

Maybe. Maybe not. It sure looks like Obama is a socialist. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck…

If Obama would have kept his promise about transparency and put the whole thing “on cspan”, then maybe we would trust him more. (But then again, he, Reid and Pelosi wouldn’t put it on cspan for good reason. The public outcry would have been even worse.) As it is, few really know what’s in the bill, and everyone knows they’re a pack of liars. We don’t trust them. Why should we?
Pinky says:

January 24, 2010 at 10:01 am

Dave – There’s no agreement in either party about what should be done to improve health care availability. The first step toward getting support from abortion opponents is to take abortion off the table. The fact is that abortion opponents are protesting a bill that expands abortion, and are having their motives questioned for it. Doesn’t that seem wrong to you?
Steve says:

January 24, 2010 at 2:55 pm

Why don’t the *democrats*, (you know, the party with majorities in both houses and with a president in the white house,) put forth such a proposal?

Re-reading this, I realize that I didn’t put it in the proper context. My comment is referring to a proposal which covers only the uninsured.
Kurt says:

January 24, 2010 at 3:00 pm

But really, perhaps you should consider that some people really do think they have good reasons to oppose [universal] health care.

I am well aware that some people oppose it for the very good reason that it threatens their economic power over others.

But the fact is that the democratic leadership has not allowed the public, and even much of congress, republican and democrat, to be involved in the development of the proposals.

Malarkey. You have the Heritage Foundation, AEI, Republican Study Committee, the Chamber of Commerce Foundation and a host of other centers to develop and annouce proposals.

If you and the rest of the conservative movement are so unimaginative and ill-informed that you can’t sketch out some alternative path to universal coverage then I really don’t know how you make the case that you could contribute something valuable to that discussion.

Why don’t the *democrats*, (you know, the party with majorities in both houses and with a president in the white house,) put forth such a proposal? -And, if this new universal health care is all about covering the uninsured, then why will it still leave over 12 million uninsured? I dunno, maybe because it really isn’t about covering the uninsured?

Ending the shrinking of coverage. Extending coverage to 30 million unisured Americans. Bowing to political reality in leaving out 7 million undocumented aliens given that every last GOP member of Congress opposes such coverage and would do all they could to stir up anti-immigrant views (remember what the “You Lie” comment was all about?). This leaves another 5 million uninsured. I can live with that as a first step, particularly since the GOP has nothing as an alternative.

The Democratic plan DOES NOT force 300 million Americans into a socialistic health plan.

Maybe. Maybe not. It sure looks like Obama is a socialist. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck…

That’s it? You justification for leaving 30 million Americans uninsured is that you have a gut feeling that Obama may be a socailist (whatever that is)?

I think that statement is in the same league as those who say that if we let the government restrict abortion it could lead to the government regulating every aspect of our private sex life.

If Obama would have kept his promise about transparency and put the whole thing “on cspan”, then maybe we would trust him more.

You, the GOP and the conservative movement were 100% against this long before this became an issue.

and from Pinky:
The first step toward getting support from abortion opponents is to take abortion off the table.

Abortion was taken off the table when the House adopted the Stupak Amendment. Except for the courageous Rep. Cao, it didn’t bring in one other Republican vote.

The NRTLC and the March for Life have been in an orgy of celebration that they killed the bill to expand coverage to 30 million Americans. Watch Rep. Steve King’s speech at the March for “Life”.

Abortion was off the table in one of the two possible versions and significant progress had been made in the other bill. Every anti-abortion Member of Congress WHO ALSO SUPPORTED UNIVERSAL COVERAGE felt we had the upper hand in winning in the final bill.

Was there a single sign at the March for Life that read “Pass the House bill”, “Defeat the SENATE bill” or something like that? No. Not one.

The silver lining to this week is that it has absolutly exposed the Pro-Life Movement as a fraud and front group for the Right Wing. Even a rather conservative priest I know gave in after initial reluctance and admitted Catholics have no moral obligatation to support the Right to Life Movement as it currently exists. I think this is very significant. The “non-negotiable issue” crowd has pushed it too far and now it is blowing up in their face.
David Nickol says:

January 24, 2010 at 4:51 pm

It sure looks like Obama is a socialist.

Steve,

What is your definition of socialism?

Socialism, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Under the currently proposed health care reform plan, will the government own the hospitals? Will it employ your family doctor, or let him stay in private practice? Will the government own the insurance companies? (It may set up an insurance company if the private option is approved, but what percentage of the insurance business will be owned by the government?) Is Medicare “socialized medicine”? How many Medicare providers are directly employed by the government?
David Nickol says:

January 24, 2010 at 5:06 pm

There’s no agreement in either party about what should be done to improve health care availability. The first step toward getting support from abortion opponents is to take abortion off the table.

Pinky,

My question was, “What can the opponents of the current legislation support that would bring the United States close to universal health care?”

Actually, there is a lot of agreement as to what can be done. Paul Krugman describes it as follows:

Kudos to the Times for a story that, for once, emphasizes the remarkable unity of vision health reformers are showing, rather than the squabbles that are an inevitable part of passing major legislation.

The essence is really quite simple: regulation of insurers, so that they can’t cherry-pick only the healthy, and subsidies, so that all Americans can afford insurance.

Everything else is about making that core work. Individual mandates are a way to prevent gaming of the system by people who don’t sign up until they’re sick; employer mandates a way to hold down the on-budget costs by preventing a rush by employers to drop insurance; the public option a way to create effective competition and hold costs down further.

But what it means for the individual will be that insurers can’t reject you, and if your income is relatively low, the government will help pay your premiums.

That’s it. Any commentator who whines that he just doesn’t understand it is basically saying that he doesn’t want to understand it.
Steve says:

January 25, 2010 at 8:35 am

I am well aware that some people oppose it for the very good reason that it threatens their economic power over others.

The power to know the hearts of men must be quite advantageous.

That’s it? You justification for leaving 30 million Americans uninsured is that you have a gut feeling that Obama may be a socailist

Uh, no. I do admit to having some feelings about this (mea culpa,) but the feelings in my gut tend to come from the administrations’ socialistic desires like single payer public option, and other simlar subjective sentimentalities.

I can live with that as a first step

Presicely. It’s a massive overhaul that’s being touted as the best thing since social seurity and medicare, and it’s also understood to be a “first step.” I agree.

You… were 100% against this long before this became an issue.

And to think I’ve been going to a confessor to bear my soul for all these years, when all I really needed to do was log on to Vox Nova.
Steve says:

January 25, 2010 at 8:36 am

Sorry. “The power to know the hearts of men must be quite advantageous.” should not have been posted with italics.
Kurt says:

January 25, 2010 at 12:10 pm

Steve,

Its not a matter of reading hearts. Some of the guys on your team talk too freely.

Though I appreciate your honesty that with some remorse you are willing to let 30 million Americans go without health care because your gut tells you the President has some other ideas you don’t like. I guess you are setting up the rationale to oppose abortion restrictions because one has a gut feeling some pro-life leaders are reactionaries.

It is also a little tiresome to keep seeing the word “socialist” thrown out as if by doing so all further discussion should stop. Did you object to the Iraq invasions because it was launched with the Socialist Tony Blair? Did you damn Nixon for his praise for the Socialist Golda Meir? Did you object to Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower funneling money to every Socialist party in western Europe through the CIA?
Pinky says:

January 25, 2010 at 12:55 pm

Dave, I’m no authority on the various health care reform proposals. I think John Mackey’s is a good starting point.
Steve says:

January 25, 2010 at 1:02 pm

You see Kurt, this is one of the things that irk me about the left (and, btw, the right.) You don’t know me, you don’t know what “team” I’m on, if any, but you and those that oppose what you consider to be “conservatives” are very quick to marginalize, condemn and smear. Just because I am opposed to the extreme left wings’ version of health care reform does not mean that I must be opposed to providing health care to the poor or whoever needs it but can’t obtain it. You, and many like you, portray an attitude that if anyone is coming from a different perspective than yours, then their motivations are less than honest – to put it mildly. Unfortunately it is the attitude of most politically active Americans, and is the reason why the problems of our nation will not be resolved. Nobody listens. Everyone reacts.

I sometimes get the feeling that we’re all being played.
David Nickol says:

January 25, 2010 at 1:52 pm

Just because I am opposed to the extreme left wings’ version of health care reform . . . .

Steve,

The fact that you think of the current legislation as “the extreme left wings’ version of health care reform” certainly indicates where you are on the political spectrum. Requiring everyone to buy health insurance (providing subsidies fro thos who can’t afford it) doesn’t sound like an extreme left wing plot to me. Even a single payer plan doesn’t strike me as extreme left wing. An extreme left-wing approach would be to nationalize the health care industry, have the government own and run all the hospitals, and have all doctors and nurses be government employees. Now, that would be socialized medicine, but nobody is suggesting that, or even attempting to approach it incrementally.
Kurt says:

January 25, 2010 at 1:57 pm

Steve,

The “team” I was referring to is those going around calling the President a “socialist.” You have publically put yourself on that team.

That and the other team of those who repeatedly claim they want to see the uninsured covered just by a different means but are wholely unable of sketching out an alternative means (other than willing to sacrifice the health care of 30 milion because they couldn’t watch a meeting on CSPAN.)
Steve says:

January 25, 2010 at 2:44 pm

David – I referred to the “extreme left wing” in the sense that those who are most pushing for health care reform in its current form are what I consider to be extreme left wingers; Pelosi, et al. I wasn’t necessarily refering the the legislation – but I suppose nothing of the sort would ever be proposed by the moderate (and certainly not the extreme) right. I guess that in itself may give you some idea of where I am in the spectrum, but if we were talking about other some other specific issues, painting my political address might be a little more troublesome. I’m still working it out myself.

Niether party represents any semblance of a solution to anything that is meaningful, imo. I find the whole ordeal rather depressing, …but arguing is sometimes distractingly fun. :)
Austin Ruse says:

January 26, 2010 at 5:45 am

Most prolifers were happy about the Brown victory because his election was a stick in the eye to the Kennedy myth and all those liberals Catholics who think you can give some soup to a poor child but kill that poor child’s sister in the womb and still be a good Catholic. I am told, however, by good prolifers in Mass. that Brown never cast a bad vote on life issues. That’s a bonus. Will he be Judy Brown on the issue. No. But we can live with that. As long as you are moving the issue forward, you may make all manner of compromise.

On Obama and his common ground approach. He lied and everyone, except lefty Catholics in the tank for Dems, knew it. There is a huge difference between the Obama, who lied at Notre Dame and lied to the Pope, and Scott Brown.
Henry Karlson says:

January 26, 2010 at 7:26 am

Austin

“Never cast a bad vote on life issues”?!?!?!?! So, it isn’t a bad vote to support ESCR, it isn’t a bad vote to say “pro-lifers, you can’t be near the clinic”?!?! Ok. This doesn’t get into other life issues like torture…. sorry folks, don’t be had by this ruse!
Austin Ruse says:

January 26, 2010 at 8:37 am

One bad vote and one marginal one? An 80% friend is not a 20% enemy. It remains that he put a stake in the heart of the Kennedy contagion. For this we must rejoice. And he killed the health care monstrosity to boot. All in all, a very good day’s work.
Henry Karlson says:

January 26, 2010 at 8:44 am

Once more, we see the ruse: “he’s not democrat, so he’s good.” That’s all folks. Sorry, that doesn’t make him pro-life, nor something to praise. And the fact that he and you are both against health care reform demonstrates the lack of pro-life ethical standard involved!
Austin Ruse says:

January 26, 2010 at 9:32 am

Interesting that you would put quotations around that sentence which I never wrote. But, I would almost agree with the sentiment.

If there were two candidates who were absolutely equal on all things i care about including the life issues, i would vote for the republican. If there were two candidates and the democrat was marginally better than the republican on the life issues, I would likely vote for the republican. Why? Because while not perfect, the republican party is the prolife party and the democrats are the prodeath party. Perhaps one day that will not be so but it is so now.
Henry Karlson says:

January 26, 2010 at 9:44 am

There are many possible meanings to the ” ” symbol.
Austin Ruse says:

January 26, 2010 at 9:47 am

By the way, we fully expect Scott Brown will disappoint us.
Austin Ruse says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:44 am

Why arent you putting these comments up?

[Comments are moderated. Even when approved, they won't likely appear immediately. - Kyle]
Pinky says:

January 26, 2010 at 11:02 am

Austin, I argued on another thread that with two candidates identical on abortion, I’d support the Republican one. I agree that an additional Republican official is going to help the pro-life movement by increasing the prominence of the pro-life party.

If the Dem were slightly more pro-life, I’d vote for him. Pro-life Democrats have got to be rewarded. Some people say that a pro-choice Democratic candidate can be supported in certain circumstances. I think we need to focus on creating two pro-life parties.
Kyle R. Cupp says:

January 26, 2010 at 1:13 pm

Austin,

I get the rational of choosing the lesser of two evils to advance the pro-life cause, but we can’t really be sure if Brown will, in the long run, advance the pro-life cause. For one thing, I’m noticing a trend with recent high-profile GOP candidates: the acceptability of their being pro-choice. Brown’s election helps make the Republican Party more of a pro-choice party. I may be wrong, but I suspect we’ll see the GOP become increasingly more open to the pro-choice position among its candidates, and we will probably see this openness among the Republicans before we’ll see more openness within the Democratic Party for the pro-life position. Your dedication to what you see is a pro-life party may help move that party away from the ideals you advocate and admire.
Austin Ruse says:

January 26, 2010 at 2:17 pm

I do make the case of the lesser of two evils, but i also make the positive case that it is important for the prolife party to grow, even to include those who do not support the prolife cause as long as the party itself remains prolife. The GOP lessens its already weak support of the prolife cause at its own peril.
Kurt says:

January 26, 2010 at 2:58 pm

Austin,

You get no debate from me that what the Pro-Life movement is all about is to support Republicans over Democrats and to take political stances based on a lust to “stick it” to the Kennedys.

Brown never cast an anti-life vote? Given that among the pro-life scorecard issues are opposing the Catholic bishops on SCHIP, opposing campaign finance reform and opposing lower drug prices for seniors, all while carefully curtailing the Pro-Life agenda so not to cause any political trouble for Big Business, I would not be surprised if he did have a “perfect Pro-Life record.”
Austin Ruse says:

January 26, 2010 at 4:28 pm

Yes, Kurt, I guess that perfectly and charitably sums up the prolife agenda!
Kurt says:

January 26, 2010 at 4:55 pm

Austin,

Glad to see that you actually have read the NRTLC’s voting record to see what issues they use in their ratings. Yes, it does perfectly describe their agenda.
Austin Ruse says:

January 26, 2010 at 5:07 pm

Here is their senate score card:

http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard.xc?chamber=S&state=US&session=111&x=16&y=17

Here is their House score card:
http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard.xc?chamber=H&state=US&session=111&x=8&y=14

All pretty defensible.
Kyle R. Cupp says:

January 26, 2010 at 6:00 pm

Austin,

How do you see the Republican Party adding those who don’t support the pro-life cause while remaining a pro-life party? Wouldn’t such additions, if they gained power within the party, threaten to remove the party’s stated aim of outlawing abortion? Last I knew, the GOP platform was officially against abortion, even if in practice many Republicans care little to nothing for the cause. Politicians not dedicated to the cause may well try to change the official policy, perhaps making the GOP ambivalent or indifferent to pro-lifer concerns, in an effort to appeal to those for whom abortion policy is of little concern or those for whom it is a mark against the GOP.
Austin Ruse says:

January 26, 2010 at 6:06 pm

I believe that if the GOP were truly pro-life or at least a little less naive (believing Souter’s and Anthony Kennedy’s lies), we would have ended abortion by now. I believe that if lefty Catholics were really prolife abortion would end tomorrow or thereabouts.

Is there a chance the GOP could go anti-life. Sure! There is a sustained effort to make that happen. On balance, though, i think the platform activists — Jim Bopp, Phylis Schlafly et al — will manage to keep the platform.
Kyle R. Cupp says:

January 26, 2010 at 6:59 pm

Austin,

No matter how pure the GOP becomes on the abortion issue, I don’t see much hope for outlawing or ending abortion so long as there exists an effective pro-choice movement in the country and until there is a consensus among the public that abortion ought to be outlawed. Until that consensus is reached and abortion rights advocates have little to no sway over public policy, pro-life legislative victories will fall with election cycles. The pro-life movement would be best served in its legislative aims by actively persuading the public – especially pro-choice people – that abortion ought to be outlawed, that the unborn deserve legal protection.
Kurt says:

January 26, 2010 at 7:09 pm

House

110th Congress – Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act (H.R. 4): Pro-Life postion is against Medicare negotiating cheaper drug prices for its participants.

107th Congress – Campaign Finance Reform (HR 2356). Pro-Life position is against campaign finance reform. (also scored with double points in the 105th Congress).

Senate

110th Congress – S.1 – Amendment to require lobbyist disclosure. Pro-Life position os against Lobbying Reform.

S. 3 – Pro-Life postion is against Medicare negotiating cheaper drug prices for its participants.

(Also scored double in the 108th Congress)

107th Congress, S. 27 – Campaign Finance Reform/ Pro-Life position is against. Counts for 2/3rds of a Senator’s Pro-Life Voting Record for this session.

Also scored with double points for the 106th Congress.

Pro-Life Position on Bush Administration’s FSAFEDS Program to allow federal employees to pay for abortion through their health plan — SILENCE

Pro-Life Position on Bush Administration’s A-76 Program to put more employees under pro-abortion health care plans — SILENCE.

Pro-Life Position on Big Business taking tax deductions for paying for abortions — SILENCE

and I am just getting warmed up!
Austin Ruse says:

January 26, 2010 at 9:20 pm

Kyle,

Honestly there is not a thing you could come up with that the pro-life movement is not already doing, although new ideas come up every year (viz, Lila Rose and her undercover work in Planned Parenthood clinics). The movement is legion. It is almost like religious orders with many different charisms. Some work on legislation, but not most. Most work on issues of public education. What you suggest is already being done which is why most Americans now identify themselves as prolife and when polled about each individual reason for an abortion, believe most abortions should be against the law.

It is happening. It is coming…
Austin Ruse says:

January 26, 2010 at 9:25 pm

Kurt,

First, a gentle correction. Your suggestion that these scorecard items are of teh “pro-life movement” is just incorrect. There is no such thing as THE pro-life movement. It is immense, and with many mansions.
What you are condemning here are score card items of one group, among the most important group, but not the only one; National Right to Life.
You suggest in a prima facie way that these issues as prolife issues are inexplicable and outrageous. My question to you is, have you contacted NRTL to ask them what their rationale is for them? I suspect they would be happy to explain to you why they have scored them.

I cannot answer for each one of them but generally trust NRTL to do the right thing almost all the time.

I will take one of them. Campaign finance. NRTL scored this becuase of the Mccain feingold prohibition on prolife groups from advertising on federal candidates 60 days prior to an election. NRTL felt this got in the way of their first amendment rights to make their views known and toss out the candidates who are not sufficiently prolife. Now, not all prolife groups shared this view, but it is at least plausible as a prolife vote.

If you called them, I suspect they would give you their reasoning for eachone of them. It might be interesting to you.
Ronald King says:

January 26, 2010 at 9:55 pm

Most Americans do not have a strong enough faith to understand what a truly pro-life culture is and consequently they are living the life of relativism in relationship to their faith.
The pro-life community do not know what pro-life means. They do not know the dynamics of human relationships that create the culture of death. Abortions would have stopped had Catholics been able to love more than they have thus far.
Austin, abortion continues because neither side in this debate loves enough. The pro-life movement does not love enough and those, like me, who oppose abortion do not love enough.
As long as we do not love enough then we support abortion no matter how much we voice and vote in opposition to it.
If you cannot see that then you are a supporter of the culture of death.
Kurt says:

January 26, 2010 at 10:52 pm

<It is happening. It is coming…

Great. Then you don’t need the rest of us who don’t celebrate the Pro-Life opposition to universal health care and who disagree with the Pro-Life Movement’s opposition to reduced prescription drug prices for seniors, campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, as well as its support for partisan and pro-Big Business politicing and its silence on Bush’s pro-abortion actions.

Austin, you will do fine without those of use who are Catholic but not Pro-Life ™. All the best to you.
Henry Karlson says:

January 27, 2010 at 5:19 am

“There is no such thing as THE pro-life movement. ”

“Honestly there is not a thing you could come up with that the pro-life movement is not already doing…”

The sophist speaks.
Austin Ruse says:

January 27, 2010 at 7:33 am

Kurt,
I had a long response to your questions about the specifics of NRTL’s score card but it did not get posted. Don’t know why. In short, NRTL is not the “pro-life movement”. They are a single organization that is among our most important but still only a single group. You should in touch with them and find out why they score the things they score. I suspect it would be a valuable conversation for you. I do know they scored campaign finance because McCain Feingold prohibited prolife groups from advertising 60 before elections and therefore viewed this as an infringement of the rights of prolife groups. I am sure there are other good reasons for them scoring the others things you find objectionable.

Further to you last comment about whether we need others in the movement. Aboslutely yes. In fact, if you want to start a group you would be absolutely welcome. If you wanted to join a group doing much of what you ask for, there is Feminists for Life and Democrats for Life and I suspect many others. We are very welcoming of those who want to stop the atrocity of child killing.
Kyle R. Cupp says:

January 27, 2010 at 7:59 am

Austin,

Your reply to Kurt was posted. You’ll see it above. As I mentioned before, we’re not able to moderate comments at every moment, so it may take a while for a comment or set of comments to be posted.
Austin Ruse says:

January 27, 2010 at 8:02 am

So sorry, Kyle. I missed that…
Kurt says:

January 27, 2010 at 10:00 am

Austin,

I leave the Pro-Life Movement in the hands of people like you. I gave it 30 years of my life but now have come to understand it as a force for injustice and hope to bring others to understand that truth.

For years when received an occassional solictation from Planned Parenthood, I mailed it back to them using their Business Reply Envelope, just to be a punk and have them waste the postage. Now, I’m doing the same for Pro-Life mailings.
Austin Ruse says:

January 27, 2010 at 12:43 pm

Well, Kurt, I doubt very much if you gave the pro-life movement 30 years of your life. And I doubt very much if you know much of anything about the pro-life movement, given especially that you thought National Right to Life was the “Pro-Life Movement”.

And I will just reiterate, the movement has many mansions and something for every taste.

If you like the idea of welcoming unborn children into the protection of society,there are a million things you can do.

You don’t like National Right to Life? Welcome to club. Many don’t.

Do you like helping women in crisis. There are 3,000 clinics that would welcome you. Do you like the women centered arguments? There are many groups doing that, especially Feminists for Life. Are you not a believer? There are Ateiests for Life. Are you gay? There are gay groups. Do you only want to pray for abortion to end? There are lots of those. Want to help young people in spreading the word? There is a group called Crossroads that helps college students walk across teh country during the summer.

what i am getting at is that some group or groups have pissed you off. Not surprising. There are many many many others.

Come back. You won’t even have to hang with “people like me” as awful as that certainly is! You can hang with those other better people! (smiley face)
DarwinCatholic says:

January 27, 2010 at 4:41 pm

Well, Kyle, I think it’s important to look at the context. A lot of conservatives were huge fans of Giuliani as a mayor of New York — but when it came around to the actual presidential primary he was DOA.

Romney’s travails were also closely tied to his like of credibility with social conservatives.

People are usually willing to get excited about “their team” scoring a win, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they take their eyes off the goal. I suppose it’s possible to imagine that Brown will fool the pro-life movement the way that Obama fooled the anti-torture, anti-war, pro-single-payer, social democrat, etc. movements, but given the sterling record of the pro-life circular firing squad, I suspect that they’ll catch on in plenty of time.
Kyle R. Cupp says:

January 27, 2010 at 6:36 pm

I get the context and why pro-lifers supported Brown. They thought he was the more pro-life option, for a number of reasons, in this past election. He will probably not be a friend to them, though, in future contexts. The level of enthusiasm I’ve seen from pro-lifers for Brown leaves me wondering if they were considering his effect beyond the specific context of current affairs.
Kurt says:

January 27, 2010 at 7:19 pm

Austin,

You have not been convincing. But thank you for the attempt.
Austin Ruse says:

January 27, 2010 at 7:26 pm

I think the main reason for prolife support for Brown was related to his pledge to kill the health care bill which was anathema to the prolifers I know. Additionally, there was the fact that he regain the filibuster for the GOP. Lastly, there was glee related to taking away the Kennedy seat. Are we aware that he will disappoint us. Certainly.
Henry Karlson says:

January 27, 2010 at 7:34 pm

In other words folks, 1) support for more people dying due to lack of proper health care, 2) pro-life only means Republican to some people, 3) oh, that’s a double-cheer for Republicans.

What does this tell you? Life isn’t the issue. GOP is.
Kurt says:

January 27, 2010 at 8:10 pm

By the time I’m finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Co-pays will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans. And neither should the people in this chamber.

Barack Obama, 2010 State of the Union Address

Austin, you have hit the nail on the head. The pro-life support for Brown was because he would kill the health care, which was anathema to pro-lifers.

A bill that would have covered 30 million uninsured and had no abortion funding in at least the House version. No call to pass the House bill. No call to fix the Senate bill. Kill the bill.

The Pro-Life Movement — A force for injustice.
Ronald King says:

January 27, 2010 at 9:24 pm

Austin, I get the sense that you think you are doing everything you can for the prolife movement. Have you ever thought that your strategy is wrong? Have you ever thought that abortion being labeled an intrinsic evil demands an intrinsic holy act to heal the suffering this has caused? Do you know what an intrinsic holy act might entail? A holy act does not include voting for politicians. A holy act does not include weekend getaways to demonstrate and have planning meetings on how to convert the secular society that is demonized everyday on EWTN. A holy act does not call people to arms.

A holy act starts with love and giving up comfort and safety for those we are told to love–our enemies. Do you know how to do that?
I am nobody to you but I hope you look at this and consider it.
Austin Ruse says:

January 27, 2010 at 10:19 pm

Kurt,

The Senate bill which Brown promised to kill had the largest expansion of abortion in our post-Roe history. This is the reason pro-lifers opposed the Senate bill and one of the reasons we supported Brown. We believe that 1.2 million abortions a year is the most critical human rights issue of our time. This holocaust pales in comparison to 30 million people without health insurance.

Ronald,

I suspect you don’t know anything about what i do for the pro-life cause. You can learn at http://www.c-fam.org. About holy acts. As i have said before, there is something for every taste. For those who want to perform or participate in holy acts and that is all, there is plenty of that. In fact, there are those in our movement who do nothing but perform holy acts. I also suspect there is as much loving ones enemies in the pro-life movement than in any other segment of society.
David Nickol says:

January 28, 2010 at 7:25 am

The Senate bill which Brown promised to kill had the largest expansion of abortion in our post-Roe history.

Austin,

No it didn’t. The American Bishops are satisfied with the Stupak Amendment. Why aren’t you? We don’t know yet the form the final bill will take. If Brown wanted health care reform without abortion, why didn’t he promise to go fight for the Stupak Amendment.

This holocaust pales in comparison to 30 million people without health insurance.

Why do you say that? I really don’t understand it. Would you be willing to work some kind of compromise to end abortion that allowed a million innocent adult Americans to be killed every year? It would save 200,000 lives according to your figures. Would you support a military coup and dictatorship that put a strict ban on abortion and enforced it brutally?
Austin Ruse says:

January 28, 2010 at 8:13 am

David,

The Stupak amendment was a part of the House bill. Stupak language was defeated in the Senate bill which is the reason the bishops conference opposed teh Senate bill. On whether we are required to support teh legislative initiatives of the bishop’s lobby shop. No. We are not.

Your second question is just silliness. If there were a million adults being deliberately killed every year, I suspect you would get off your duff and do something.
Ronald King says:

January 28, 2010 at 8:19 am

Austin, You are correct. I wasn’t aware of everything you do. You are on my favorites list. I agree that there are many holy acts being done and many in prolife do love what we call the enenmy.
Are you ready to take a purely spiritual step to another holy act? This goes beyond the governmental and social structures that prolife has conformed their strategical planning. This is something that is being done in a fragmented fashion and it loses its collective power and influence because of this fragmentation.
When you say there is something for everybody, then, that sounds to me like many holy acts are taking place on many different fronts. It is like in that board game, Risk. When armies are spread out on many different fronts they are weakened.
What would happen if everyone from all of these different areas were gathered in one place and employing a spiritual strategy that nobody could ignore and yet at the same time revealing the sacrifice that is necessary for everyone to see how much we are willing to give up in order to love them.
You have been blessed with the ability to lead and organize tens of thousands of good holy people. I have been blessed to work individually for 30 years with suffering women and being taught by them about the nature of their suffering. I have seen and heard their rage and horror because we males have not made this world safe for their children.
After 40 years of living in “mortal” sin God still loved me and showed me that He was never separated from me during that time. He showed me a spark of His Love Easter of 2005 and I was hooked. Everything changed and everything I had learned about human love and hate was brought to a new level of understanding that revealed to me that each of us are made for love. He showed me that there are no small hurts when love is lost. He showed me what it would take for the world to see how much He loves all of us. He taught me all these years how human beings are injured by the loss of love and how this loss distorts their reality of self and others. He taught me how extremely hard it is to unlearn what has been hardwired into their brains due to chemical changes in adulthood that inhibit new emotional learning. He taught me how to create an environment of love in my office that begins to soften defenses to protect vulnerability.
If you want to know the next step in expressing Love for those who are called “enemies” then I am willing to talk. However, every catholic radio personality I have attempted to share this with has lied and told me they would pray about it and then never responded. They must think I am crazy and they are correct. I am no longer in their box of reality. So, I do not expect your positive response to this. I know how difficult it is to envision something that is not within one’s conditioned response to the ways of the world. I know that objects in motion remain in motion or objects at rest remain at rest unless enacted upon by an outside force.
God is that outside force that blew my reality.
Imagine all of those loving people in a physical presence physically being that luminous light that others would be drawn to.
Austin Ruse says:

January 28, 2010 at 8:53 am

Ronald,

Are you aware of the 40 Days for Life movement? It is a fairly new initiative that is sweeping the prolife nation. It promoted 40 days of fasting and prayer to end abortion. Since you are not saying what you propose, I can only guess that they are promoting something like what you propose.

As for me. If you want to get in touch with me, feel free. You can find my contact info at our website.
Kurt says:

January 28, 2010 at 9:49 am

Austin,

Neither Senator Elect Brown nor the Pro-Lifers marching in celebration of his victory qualified their opposition to extending health insurance to 30 million Americans by saying their problem was with the Senate bill. In fact Brown said he thought the House bill was worse than the Senate.

Worse, whatever faults you might find with the Senate language, the Republican Party’s alternative to the bill would have an even larger expansion of abortion. Where was the RTL opposition to the GOP?
Austin Ruse says:

January 28, 2010 at 11:25 am

Kurt,

I dont know about Brown, but pro-lifers opposed the Senate bill because of abortion. Other pro-lifers who are also politically conservative opposed the bill on additional grounds.

i am not sure what you are referring to in teh GOP alternative that would have expanded abortion.
Ronald King says:

January 28, 2010 at 11:28 am

Austin, I know about the 40 Days for Life and I have participated. It is not enough but it does give us the shadow of what is possible. I did not state what it is because I wanted to see if you would come up with something outside the box. I will contact your site. Thanks.
David Nickol says:

January 28, 2010 at 11:30 am

The Stupak amendment was a part of the House bill.

Austin,

But it is still in the House bill. The truth is, we do not know what impact health care reform legislation will have on abortion, because we do not know what the final legislation would have been (or will be). If the House and Senate versions had been truly neutral on abortion, or had discouraged abortion, how many “pro-lifers” would have supported it?

Your second question is just silliness. If there were a million adults being deliberately killed every year, I suspect you would get off your duff and do something.

But there are not millions of adults being killed every year in the United States. However 16,000 children across the world die every day of hunger-related causes, and that’s something we can do about.

If the Catholic Church is right that human life begins at the moment of conception, and that newly conceived human beings are persons, then abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. But it is nevertheless unique. You will have to explain to me why it trumps any other issue. You are simply repeating the arguments from the presidential election campaign: Abortion takes 1.2 million lives a year, and consequently the only issue that could be more important would have to be one that takes more than 1.2 million lives a year. That argument doesn’t satisfy me. It would give an anti-abortion government the license to do anything that stopped abortion as long as they kept the death toll of their policies under 1.2 million deaths. That makes no sense to me.
Henry Karlson says:

January 28, 2010 at 11:34 am

Austin reveals more than he wants: “conservatives” are not interested in life; they oppose health care reform which works to overcome many of the death panels put into place by big business!
Austin Ruse says:

January 28, 2010 at 11:57 am

David,

In terms of their work, people who dedicate their lives to protecting unborn children do not work on other issues, even other very important issues. If the healthcare legislation had been truly neutral or protective of unborn life and of the consciences of doctors and nurses and of end of life issues, would prolifers have supported the bill? I don’t know, but they would not have opposed it on prolife grounds.

If 1.2 million first graders were lined up each year and shot and the US government not only said it was ok but said it was constitutionally protected, you might think this was an important issue. What makes no sense to me is that anyone could think this was ok.

Ronald, call me in my Washington office.
Ronald King says:

January 28, 2010 at 12:10 pm

Here is the intrinsic evil. 5,000,000 or more children die each year before their 5th birthday due to lack of everything that we take for granted here. Now if someone had a spiritual understanding that this suffering actually influences women to not want their children to suffer like these mothers and children do then they would see that every human being is connected in that suffering and if that suffering is not alleviated then abortion will continue.
These are children aborted outside the womb. What is the difference. There is no difference inside or outside except in the child outside the womb who suffers the slow death of knowing that we do not give a damn because we are to busy being mislead by the illusion that politics and military power are the source of our self-protection.
As one well known preacher stated, paraphrasing, God Bless America?! God damn America! However, I know what he meant.
Austin Ruse says:

January 28, 2010 at 12:29 pm

Oh yes, the fact that a billion people get by every year on less than a dollar a day. And the fact that a billion people a year can not get a clean glass of water or do not have access to safe sanitation are intrinsic evils. Amen to that, brother. No argument here.
David Nickol says:

January 28, 2010 at 2:10 pm

In terms of their work, people who dedicate their lives to protecting unborn children do not work on other issues, even other very important issues.

Austin,

Certainly this doesn’t apply to the American Bishops. Are their lives not dedicated to protecting the unborn? If you are saying that people whose only concern is protecting the unborn have no other concerns, that is a tautology.

If 1.2 million first graders were lined up each year and shot and the US government not only said it was ok but said it was constitutionally protected, you might think this was an important issue.

But the government does not sanction the shooting of 1.2 million first graders. It guarantees individual parents the right to an abortion. The two are not equivalent. As I said, abortion is a unique issue. You can’t convince me by analogies that do not hold up. I certainly cannot think of an analogy that works. The collective killing of 1.2 million first graders is nothing like 1.2 individual, private decisions to abort. The two are just not comparable.

What makes no sense to me is that anyone could think this was ok.

I don’t believe I have ever argued that abortion is “ok.” My argument is that it is not like the Holocaust, and it is not like 1.2 million first graders being shot. It is a unique issue, and I am asking why it is the issue that overrides all others. If “only” 1 million first graders were being shot, and 1.2 million abortions were being performed, would “pro-life” advocates argue that the abortion issue outweighed all others and had to be tackled first? Even if an unborn life is morally equivalent to a “post-born” life, should society and the law treat each exactly the same?
Kurt says:

January 28, 2010 at 2:41 pm

Austin,

None of the speakers nor the signs/banners at the March for Life spoke of opposition to the Senate bill. They all made unqualified attacks on health care reform. The celebrated Brown’s victory in the view that it “killed” health care reform, not that it

You called the Senate bill teh largest expansion of abortion since Roe. The Republican proposal for health care would have been an even larger expansion, yet not a word from the Right-to-Life Movement
Austin Ruse says:

January 28, 2010 at 2:42 pm

David,

I am saying that most people make a choice on what issues they will dedicate their time and treasure to. Most people who work on protecting the unborn child only work on that issue. I work on a highly limited number of issues, abortion chief among them and then only at the UN adn the EU, and where ever their tentacles reach. In terms of pro-life concerns centered around the healthcare bill, pro-lifers were concerned primarily about halting funding of abortion, also conscience protection, and end of life issues.

The government protects the private killing of 1.2 million children a year. I cannot for the life of me see how this does not concern everyone. There is no other issue that even comes close. We make choices, David. We perform triage. If abortions dropped to 20,000 per year, roughly the hard cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother, would I still be working on it. I don’t know. We make choices based on the greatest need. 1.2 million murders is a big need. Yes, that is unique, David.
DarwinCatholic says:

January 28, 2010 at 3:43 pm

Henry,

On more intellectual topics, you’re very good at understanding multiple view points. I’m not sure why it is that when it comes to politics you resort to statements like “‘conservatives’ are not interested in life”, when you know very well the issue is that conservatives do not think that the type of health care regulation being proposed will be condusive to the common good.

Surely you agree that one is not obliged to support a measure simply because it has good declared intentions? Is someone required to support something called “health care reform” regardless of whether one thinks it will actually help people, regardless of what one thinks it will cost, regardless of whether one thinks it will bring the whole system crashing down, regardless of whether one thinks it lurches dangerously towards statism?

Conservatives no more oppose these bills because they do not care about life than libertarians oppose the Homeland Security legislation because they don’t care about safety, or Democrats oppose education reform because they don’t care about children.
Henry Karlson says:

January 28, 2010 at 3:53 pm

Darwin

I didn’t say “conservatives are not interested in life.” I said that for the movements which claim to be pro-life but think the best thing in the world is to focus on health care and defeating it, not abortion or other life concerns, are not really pro-life. The fact that there could be bad health care reform is one thing; the fact that ANY health care reform, including ones which worked for the elimination of more abortion from any funding than what we have today is a target by many of these same leaders says much. The concern isn’t abortion, something else. The concern isn’t about life, but something else. That is the point.

What we have with Ruse in this and many threads are all kinds of indications that he is just a GOP hack (which is not surprising if you read about his connections with McCain, and so sold himself out to McCain’s anti-life policies). Just like you point out that having the name “health care” doesn’t mean it is health care, so having the name “pro-life” doesn’t make it pro-life. And the concern of these interests have not been for “better health care reforms” which “remove abortion” because they protested even that. The concern is to just keep misrepresenting the issue and say “health care, blah” and use words like “socialism” “loss of freedom” “rationing” for ANY health care reform. When that happens, it is clear it is not about this bill, but allreform. And the fact that the claims about the bill are often wrong, and the claims about health care when compared to other nations is wrong shows us once again the shilling that is going on. The interests are not for life, not for social justice, but excusing GOP votes and using the pro-life cause for the GOP. That’s the wrong way around and that is what I am opposed.

I am not opposed to people voting for the GOP through prudential reasons; however, when making prudential reasons, don’t include things which are anti-life as some of the pro-life reasons for the vote! That’s sick!

The fact that the hacks have scared people about “rationing of health care” while ignoring the greater rationing in the system we have today, so only the elite get the real benefits of the system, indicates much of what is really going on with this anti-health care reform. The fact that the hacks keep saying “this is going to increase abortion” in ways which has been proven, time and again, is not true, indicates much. And when the bills work specifically to have a more pro-life, anti-abortion stand than anything the GOP has ever offered, and this is rejected, that says the issue isn’t abortion and life. I will take off the mask and show what lies underneath.

As David and others have asked: why not the focus on the LARGE amount of IVP? Or as MM has asked many times— why is there NO outcry for the funding of abortion in the insurance packages we have today? Why is there no work whatsoever to stop that? It’s easy to see why. And it’s sick.

Are they they only ones sick? OBVIOUSLY NOT. But the discussion here is on the so-called “pro-life” movement, and how it is constantly finding itself manipulated and used by the people who have no real concern for change.
Austin Ruse says:

January 28, 2010 at 4:13 pm

Kurt,

Prolifers are pretty sophisticated, no matter what you may have heard. When a sign at the pro-life march talked about killing the health-care bill, other folks there knew exactly what that meant; kill it because it introduces federal funding for abortion. No need for qualifiers. Folks there got it. I actually don’t remember any such signs though i am sure they were there. I walked under the Order of Malta banner. Most of the signs were I Regret My Abortion, I Regret my Lost Fatherhood, Abortion is Mean, and so forth.

About the GOP alternative being even more prodeath. I guess i woudl have to ask you for examples. Did the GOP alternative pay for abortions? I don’t think so. Perhaps there are other things you are thinking about. Let me know.
DarwinCatholic says:

January 28, 2010 at 5:02 pm

I didn’t say “conservatives are not interested in life.”

I quoted from your most recent comment word-for-word, Henry.

You’re also eliding the fact that there are two reasons why many pro-lifers are opposing the current Democratic proposals on health care:

1) Abortion funding (in the case of the Senate bill language)

but much more so:

2) For reasons having nothing to do with the abortion issue per se, but rather with having a generally conservative/anti-statist approach to health care as well as many other issues. This is _not_ a pro-life issue, but it is the case that many pro-lifers happen also to be conservative (in the groups I’ve been involved with the split is roughly 80% R, 20% D) and so often the same people who are prominant in pro-life political groups happen also to have opinions on the health care bill.

This should hardly be surprising. Go to a peace rally and you’ll often see people who are in favor of gay marriage or in favor of abortion rights — there’s no necessary connection between the topics, but in reality the same people are often involved. Progressive pro-lifers who don’t like this fact are probably best off trying to expand the ranks of pro-lifers on the progressive side of the aisle. After all, one of the main ways things got this way (other than the selfish individualism which is often the underlying motivation for supporting modern statist policies) is through pro-lifers being flogged out of progressive circles.
Henry Karlson says:

January 28, 2010 at 5:12 pm

Darwin

You fail to understand the context to make for an equivocation, and use my words beyond the meaning within the context itself. But c’est la vie. I used those words, but what I meant is I didn’t use them in the ways you are trying to make me use.

But it is interesting how you say “most pro-lifers” are “conservative anti-statist” in the American sense of conservative. This again shows how real life issues (health care) are ignored for the sake of ideology, and that is again the point. The fight against health care WAS NOT ABOUT ABORTION (which is why they didn’t support a pro-life, anti-abortion bill; it shows they in fact WENT AGAINST LIFE even on the issue of ABORTION , and they are willing to negotiate it away for their greater ideology). That is the issue — and this again shows why they put more effort in misrepresenting and going against health care (and therefore, against things like helping the poor, saving lives, etc) than abortion; and why they also don’t go against their own material support for abortion that they keep helping and promoting through their support of the corporate insurance industry.
Austin Ruse says:

January 28, 2010 at 5:18 pm

Darwin,

I cannot tell you how right you are. This awful quagmire will not end until politically liberal Catholics get involved, seriously involved in the issue. Amen. Amen. Amen. And you are right about the other political opinions of pro-lifers. they do tend to be socially conservative on other issues. In fact, many of them, like me, would have opposed the health care bill even if it had nothing to do with abortion but for other reasons (smaller government, a mistrust of government etc). On the other hand, most of us do not work on healtcare per se and therefore might have opposed it personally but would not have spent any time on it. I did not work on the health care bill even with abortion in it because domestic legislation is outside of the mission of my group.
Henry Karlson says:

January 28, 2010 at 5:26 pm

“This awful quagmire will not end until politically liberal Catholics get involved, seriously involved in the issue.”

You really do not know what you are talking about here. Liberal? Americanism is liberal.
DarwinCatholic says:

January 28, 2010 at 6:13 pm

Henry,

I just don’t like being told “I didn’t say that” when I quoted someone exactly. “I didn’t mean” is usually the construction in such circumstances.

Again, though, you’re mis-representing the debate when you say that conservatives are ignoring “real life issues (health care)” in support of their ideology (by which, I assume, you mean a desire to see the scope of the Federal government be smaller rather than larger.)

One need not be “against” health care in the sense of not wanting people to receive medical treatment to be against a pair of bills which seek to reduce somewhat (they do not even claim to provide coverage to everyone) the number of uninsured by legally requiring everyone to buy health insurance, and then providing them with subisidies to do so in order to take away the pain of what would otherwise be an incredibly unpopular law.

You accuse conservatives of wanting to support the “corporate insurance industry”, but what these bills would do is legally require everyone in the US under 65 and above the poverty line to become a customer of that industry. If the bill went into affect, 2015 would be a year of record profits for insurance companies, and those who dislike those companies would be screaming to the heavens.

Thinking these bills are not good does not make one un-interested in life.

It’s the absolute attatchment to these standard progressive policies which makes it rather hard for me to follow your claim to be a traditionalist/monarchist. None of the traditional Catholic monarchies had universal health care or extensive social welfare programs. That is an innovation of the modern, “liberal” centralized nation state. The extent of social services available in traditional monarchies would look too slim to all but the most fanatical modern libertarians.
Henry Karlson says:

January 28, 2010 at 6:19 pm

DC

When the debate is not over bills but over the basic notion of universal health care, and the words “socialism” keep coming up, it is an ideological battle which wants no universal health care, despite the lives it would save. That is anti-life, strike 1. Without any bills or particulars, before them, the “no to health care” mantras were there. So in other words, to make it as if it were about particular bills is absurd, because the declarations made didn’t fit the bills. Any health care bill is seen as being the same — as socialism and to be fought against. Even if it saves lives. Even if it stops abortions! (Strike 2).

So let’s assume it is expensive. So what?! If it saves lives and stops abortion (I thought it was non-negotiable, and one must support anti-abortion politics when confronted with pro-abortion politics), the expense, though maybe not ideal, is trumped by abortion. So one would think. But, the so-called pro-lifers say no! Money trumps here! They are more concerned with making their own money than passing a bill which would put a stop to more abortions. Strike 3 — serving mammon! You’re out!

Stop the sophistry. No one is being fooled here. The ideology is so apparent that when something can be done with abortion, it is still rejected. Abortion is just used as a device to hide the real agenda, and the agenda is not for the sake of life. It is quite clear, abortion is not the prime concern, money is. And that is a greater non-negotiable which is why it is always brought up when the fact that abortions would be limited is mentioned. Money over stopping abortion. Those who follow this — or voted for a pro-choicer like Scott Brown — should they go to confession for the formal cooperation with abortion and helping it continue?

The fact is that people are bankrupt with the system as it stands. Yes, I think the bill wasn’t perfect and had many bad things in it as it stood. But so are things now, yet at least one could have got a pro-life measure if one worked with it. It was there for the taking, but rejecting universal health care because it “is socialism” was more important than the babies. This shows the problems with the movement. It’s not about the babies, but — as Mark Shea comments — holds them hostage. That’s sick.

There is no way it is a “pro-life” victory when the notion of universal health care is rejected and seen to be what needs to be demolished. But it is to the “movement” which shows again how the movement isn’t about life, but using babies for the sake of something else. Which is why they will never work to change anything. If you stopped abortion, what do they have not? “Having better health care is against life?!” Seriously. No wonder, when offered real improvement to stop abortion they said “no, we don’t want that.”

The ideologues WORKED FOR MORE ABORTIONS. That says enough. Non-negotiable my foot!

And what you just said about history and monarchies is quite absurd — there is reason why liberalism seeks after individualism and “small government” including the rejection of government aid. The fact is that aid was common and the government worked against the selfishness of the elite — even the whole notion of “giving cake” if properly understood was itself a social reform! The categorization of cake made sure the bakeries worked for the nutrition of the land, and not for mere monetary requirements; so one could only make and get so much “cake.” Yet, when the bread was gone, those restrictions were lifted — let them have the more expensive baked good, let them have cake!

While the format of social programs were different, because of the pre-industrial, pre-capitalist, pre-economical materialism of the medieval ages (so the structure and understanding of how to put out a social program differed in the monarchies which developed in that time), it is quite well know the state worked for the common people and indeed, was “big government.” We can see how in medieval England rights were granted and reinforced by the monarchs. Think about how people were allowed to live off the land; the monarchs kept that in. But when capitalism and liberalism took over with its notion of absolute property rights, what was once seen as a basic right is now rejected and people who follow through with it are thrown in jail for “stealing.” We could go further and look into the long history of Byzantium and its public works… or the fact that Catholic social teaching has always encouraged this… with the saints talking about how the rich are mere stewards, not absolute possessors. The view changed quite a bit through liberalism and its capitalist economics.
Kurt says:

January 28, 2010 at 6:43 pm

Austin,

Your claim was that the Senate bill would be the largest expansion of abortion since Roe. The Senate bill expands health care coverage by a very mild employer incentive that would result in 2 million more Americans having insurnace from their employer, and then tens of millions more through the exchanges where they would buy insuranace, in some cases with tax credits and vouchers. Everyone particpating the exchanges would be guaranteed the ability to buy pro-life policies and states could prohibit sale in their state exchange of any policies that include abortions.

Under the Republican plan, tens of millions of Americans as well would buy health insurance. They would be able to do so because regulations would be cut, taxes would be lowered and tort reform would be enacted, making private health care affordable. So the same expansion would occur. Even greater as the Republican plan would allow people to buy policies across state lines, making meaningless any state law restricting policies with abortion coverage. While the GOP does not call for vouchers, it does give tax credits not just to low income people but would make premiums tax deductabble for individual health care policies to all Americans and to all policies (abortion and pro-life).

Further, the Republican plan does not require purchasers of private health insuranace (with or without a tax deduction) to pay separately for abortion coverage. As current consumer habits show, this results in many pro-life purchasers to be unaware of abortion coverage and for the somewhat indifferent, frees them of the possible stigma of writing a monthly check for abortion coverage.

In fact in the decades since Roe, have the Republicans in Congress ever introduced or held a hearing on a bill to interfer in the ability of the private market to cover abortions?

So there you have it.
David Nickol says:

January 28, 2010 at 7:19 pm

I cannot for the life of me see how this does not concern everyone.

Austin,

You have not even attempted to explain why it should. Abortion is not like the Holocaust. Jews are rightly offended when a comparison is made. It is not like shooting first graders. It is not like anything else, because an infant growing inside of a woman’s body — particularly very early in pregnancy — cannot reasonably be compared to a living, breathing, thinking human being. The unborn have never been recognized as persons and protect as such in civil law even when abortion has been illegal. Why should society, or the government, make abortion its number-one issue? I am not saying it is a trivial issue. I am asking why it should be the issue to trump all other issues?
DarwinCatholic says:

January 28, 2010 at 10:34 pm

Henry,

This cycle of the health care debate was driven entirely by the Democratic Party, and the range of possible approaches was always very narrow. To be against the range of proposals being put forward (all of which either involved mandating that everyone purchase private insurance) does not necessarily mean that one is against all approaches to providing health care. (I would, for instance, have no problem with mandatory HSAs with those who make less receiving a supplament from payroll taxes — plus either private or government run high deductible insurance for expenses over 20k/yr. Indeed, I would be strongly for such a plan.)

It’s also baseless to claim that conservatives in this case “worked for more abortions” (either with or without ALL CAPS). There is really no way to argue that passing the existing health care bills would have resulted in fewer abortions, so it’s hard to see how opposing the current bills equates to “working for more abortions”.

Nor, on the wider pro-life point, is it at all clear to me that this legislation would save any lives. The studies which have been used to try to prove that large numbers of people die as a result of lack of health insurance are highly suspect — as, indeed, are the ones which claim large numbers of bankruptcies as a result of the current health care system.

Finally, your points about traditional monarchies seem divorced from the actual historical realities. The simple fact is that the portion of the GDP which was consumed and then dispersed by the government was quite small in the great Catholic monarchies — and most of the money which monarchs did collect in taxes was spent on building project (primarily for the benefit of aristocrats) and the army. Taxation was highly regressive, with the nobility in many cases totally exempted from taxation despite being the people in possession of most of the wealth. And the amounts of state-sponsored social welfare programs that were provided by those monarchies were paltry in comparison to even the current US programs which are not going anyway. (Social security and medicare alone, much less unemployment benefits, provide far more social safety net than any of the traditional monarchies did — which were doing well if they could avoid bread riots in time of poor harvests.)

Perhaps one could argue that much of this was the result of the entire economy being so much closer to a subsistance level — but it certainly didn’t help that the whole feudal system was based on taking anywhere from 20-60% of the income/production away from the very poorest members of society (the peasantry) to be given to the aristocracy, who were often exempt from paying any sort of taxes themselves. By comparison, letting people fish, hunt and graze the common freely was a pretty small return. (Which is no defense of the revoking of traditional community rights to such resources.)

It’s true that in the post monarchic age, the Church has moved towards a social teaching which is in some ways more compatible with “big government”, but to claim that the traditional monarchies were in any sense “big government” of the modern progressive sort that you seem to find so attractive is fanciful. The main thing a medieval peasant could expect to get back from his king was a pole tax or a conscription to go die in his army.
Henry Karlson says:

January 29, 2010 at 4:08 am

Darwin

Your ideology shows clear with your response, on so many levels, and you show you are unwilling to accept reality (people are not dying due to lack of health care?!!? what?!?!! that alone says enough). That the “Democrats” are the ones pushing for health care — yes, THAT IS THE POINT. The ideologues don’t give a damn about the lives of others. And the fact that Stupak DID provide a more pro-life change to the federal system is entirely ignored — once again showing to me, abortion is not the REAL concern. I have nothing more to do with such sophistry. Good day.
Austin Ruse says:

January 29, 2010 at 6:48 am

David,

Unborn children are not recognized in law? You are sadly uninformed. Unborn children are represented in court on probate matters. Unborn children can sue for the wrongful death of their father. Unborn can inherit property. Their death from an attack on their mother is considered a separate crime in many states and federally. Unborn children can have a guardian appointed to them to represent their interests (this is even in Roe). Are they like you and me? No. They cannot drive or vote or eat steak. But, i do hope that you do not measure someone being a human being by such measures. An unborn child from the moment of conception is a separate and distinct human being who needs only food, and shelter to continue to live and grow. They can be either persons or property. Which are they for you, David? If they are property then they are slaves.
David Nickol says:

January 29, 2010 at 7:24 am

I would, for instance, have no problem with mandatory HSAs with those who make less receiving a supplament from payroll taxes — plus either private or government run high deductible insurance for expenses over 20k/yr.

Darwin,

The Catholic Church says health care is a human right, and you have no problem with requiring people to pay the first $20,000 per year out of pocket? If a person, or a family, needs subsidies to buy the insurance in the first place, how many of them could afford to pay (in a worst case scenario) $20,000 a year in medical expenses? Since these things go by calendar year, if you have a major medical problem in December of one year that extends into January of the next, you could be hit by $40,000 of medical expenses pretty much all at once? I hope I am totally misunderstanding you.
Austin Ruse says:

January 29, 2010 at 7:30 am

I assume all the good Catholics on this site but who also happen to hate/dislike/disagree with the actions of the “pro-life movement” will now come to the rhetorical defense of the humanity of the unborn child.
Austin Ruse says:

January 29, 2010 at 8:20 am

David, it is rather rich that you who reject Church teaching on abortion, appeal to Church teaching on healthcare.
Henry Karlson says:

January 29, 2010 at 9:06 am

Austin

There are many issues. The personhood of the child is a different question than their humanity. But yes, of course the baby, from the earliest stage (conception) is a person, and should have all the rights of a person. Their health care should be respected as much as the health care of the 34 year man living on the street, dying of cancer, and being euthanized by the rationing of health care in the United States. Both are in need of respect and dignity; to be pro-life is not to play quantity games as a foundation for consequentialistic thinking, to say one evil is not as bad as another. The evil of murder is the same when it is to the unborn as it is to the born, even if for the born, people often think it is not as bad if such murder is done in a time of war.
David Nickol says:

January 29, 2010 at 10:07 am

David, it is rather rich that you who reject Church teaching on abortion, appeal to Church teaching on healthcare.

Austin,

This is a Catholic blog, and when I disagree with Catholics and believe they are in conflict with Church teachings, I can’t find anything wrong with pointing out that I think they are ignoring the Church. I agree that health care is a right, and I don’t believe it would be hypocritical of me to point out to Catholics that the Church says health care is a right, even if that was my only point of agreement with the Church.

I am not sure it is accurate to say that I “reject Church teaching on abortion.” I am just not sure about it. I have said many times that if the Church is correct that a soul is infused at the moment of conception, then the unborn are certainly persons. But even so, that would be a religious belief and should not determine secular law.

Also, on the topic of Church teaching on abortion, the Church has an absolute right to say authoritatively to its members that procuring or performing an abortion is prohibited. However, it does not follow that what the Church says about how citizens and legislators ought to deal with abortion in a pluralistic society is dogma. To say that abortion is an “intrinsic evil” and therefore all Catholics are bound under pain of mortal sin to work to overturn Roe v Wade and criminalize abortion state by state is an argument with a tremendous gap in it. It isn’t really a moral argument. It’s a kind of religious-political coercion.
Ronald King says:

January 29, 2010 at 10:08 am

Where does intelligence begin to define life? Then, depending on where the definition of life begins, what are the influences determining that beginning?
Does intelligence end life and if so under what circumstances? Does intelligence support life? If so, under what circumstances?
What is life?
Must go now.
Austin Ruse says:

January 29, 2010 at 10:35 am

David,

The Church may teach there is a right to health care but no where does the Church say how that is to be provided and certainly does not say there is a right togovernment provided health care. Would that some lefty Catholic would start a non-profit insurance company that would provide health insurance at a very low rate not unlike the Knights of Columbus who started what is now one of the largest life insurance companies in teh country.

Abortion would be intrinsically evil whether the Church said so or not. It is morally wrong to deliberately take the life of an innocent human being. Even atheists think so. To claim that the Church teaches there is moral obligation for every Catholic to work toward overturning roe on pain of mortal sin is silly.

Ronald,

I don’t believe that intelligence is a measure of humanity. Do you mean if you cannot tell what equals two plus two then you can be put down?
David Nickol says:

January 29, 2010 at 11:24 am

The Church may teach there is a right to health care but no where does the Church say how that is to be provided and certainly does not say there is a right togovernment provided health care.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:

- in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

Now, I will grant that the Catechism doesn’t say Catholics have an obligation to support the current health care reform legislation. But it certainly does say that government and society have a duty to see that all people get medical care. How is this duty to be met? And if one opposes the current health care legislation, isn’t this the time to offer an alternative to how the right of every person to health care can be guaranteed?

It is morally wrong to deliberately take the life of an innocent human being.

Of course, this is begging the question, since most supporters of abortion rights do not agree that an unborn child is an “innocent human being” (in the sense of being a human person with a right to life).

To claim that the Church teaches there is moral obligation for every Catholic to work toward overturning roe on pain of mortal sin is silly.

No, it isn’t the Church that teaches that. The Church teaches that abortion must be against the law. The “pro-life” movement tries to convince people that the only acceptable approach is to vote for a president who will appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v Wade. This is why there was so much argument prior to the last presidential election that Catholics could not justify voting for Obama: intrinsic evil, remote material cooperation with evil, proportionate reason — you must recall. Those who had other theories about how abortion might be dealt with (e.g., Doug Kmiec) were denounced by the pro-life movement, because only the political program of overturning Roe v Wade (that is, voting Republican) would do.
DarwinCatholic says:

January 29, 2010 at 2:55 pm

David,

The Church also describes food, clothing and housing as human rights — yet the vast majority of people pay not just the first $20k per year of those expenses, but the entirety of them. Clearly, something being a human right does not mean that it is never something purchased.

In answer to your question:

a) I would consider it a necessity of any such system that health savings account law be changed such that balances roll over from year to year.

b) I’d already specified that those making under a certain amount would receive a subsidy to bring their account balances up to a minimum standard.

c) There would certainly be nothing to prevent people from purchasing “gap” insurance to avoid large medical bills under 20k. In fact, in many countries with “universal health care” it is common for people to purchase supplamental private insurance. (France, for instance.)

d) To level things further, one might make certain long term conditions be 100% covered.

Singapore has a somewhat similar system which is one of the most efficient in the world, with lower costs and better outcomes than Europe. Something like I’ve described is certainly not the only approach I could see supporting, but in order to differentiate from the strongly left-leaning approaches that Henry seems to imagine are the only possible ones, I picked something which leans very strongly in the libertarian/economistic direction.

Henry,

I think that our readers are entirely capable of determining which of the two of us is being swept along by a torrent of ideology, obstructed by very little actual knowledge, in this particular conversation, and which is trying to take a balanced approach. I am happy to leave it to them to decide.

I must admit, I find it amusing that you consider the idea that conservatives and progressives might both be essentially well meaning (though working from different philosophies and assumptions) to be sophistical and ideological, while you do not consider the claim that conservatives “don’t care about life” to be so.

(And yes, shocking as you may find it, since you somehow conflate health insurance with health care, the pool of people who do not have health insurance are not noteably more unhealthy or more likely to die than those with health care. That doesn’t mean that having health insurance is not important, but the claims that lack of it is “killing people” are vastly overplayed and somewhat deceptive.)
David Nickol says:

January 29, 2010 at 3:41 pm

he Church also describes food, clothing and housing as human rights — yet the vast majority of people pay not just the first $20k per year of those expenses, but the entirety of them. Clearly, something being a human right does not mean that it is never something purchased.

Darwin,

True, but clearly (it seems to me) government ultimately must provide food, shelter, and clothing for those who cannot, through no fault of their own, provide for themselves. The difference between food, clothing, and even housing, on the one hand, and medical care, on the other, is that you can economize or script oo food, clothing, and shelter by buying the cheapest you can get, but if you need surgery for a detached retina (which I just had), you can’t choose between WalMart surgery and Neiman Marcus surgery. Expensive medical care is just as expensive for poor people as it is for rich people.

It seems to me the more you try to make your plan fair with subsidies and the like, the more it’s going to cost, to the point where any really fair plan will cost just about as much as any other really fair plan.

Consider this. The average, uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery in the United States costs about $12,000 and care for the baby in it’s first year (assuming no complications is about $4,500. There’s $16,500 right off the bat for one child, and that is not considering the fact that if the mother works, she’s probably going to be on unpaid maternity leave for six weeks. Then who is going to take care of the baby?

How many people can afford to have a large family at those rates?
Austin Ruse says:

January 29, 2010 at 4:07 pm

David,

2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:

- in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance

it is interesting that the Catechism uses “political community” rather than government. I wonder if there is a distinction. With regard what teh political community is to ensure “in keeping with the community’s institutions” is the right to medical care. A few things about that. Ensuring a right is not the same thing as ensuring the thing itself. This statement is more along the lines of a category of nondiscrimination. The political community should ensure that no one is discriminated against in receiving medical care.

the second para interestingly switches from political community to “society”. Now society predates the state both historically and ontologically. Society here very clearly does not mean the state. It means you and me. I would furtehr say on this score that not having health insurance is not the same thing as not having health care. By law states must care for anyone who walks through the door. Not everyone walking through teh door is going to get a heart transplant but the Church, I dont’ think, is calling for this.

it is not as simple as saying the church teaches that everyone has a right to health care adn from that assume it must come from the state and precisely in the way Senate dems say so.
DarwinCatholic says:

January 29, 2010 at 5:00 pm

Well, at the factual level, as I pointed out, Singapore has a system much like this, and it does indeed succeed in providing better outcomes at significantly lower cost than other systems generally regarded as “fair” such as in Canada, France, etc. I would hazzard a suggestion that the reason for this is that the Singapore system uses market forces to drive down the cost of care, while Canada and France only do this through government fiat, which is generally less efficient.

In regards to your point about large families: As it so happens my wife and I are embarking on paying for our third out of pocket birth within four years. The reason is that my wife (after delivering her first two in hospital — totally paid for by insurance) became absolutely fed up with dealing with hospital deliveries and decided she wanted to give birth at home with a midwife. This works fine for the majority of women, and is vastly cheaper. (In our case, 2400 per child, including all check-ups throughout pregnancy.) However, insurance doesn’t cover it, so we end up paying out of pocket. All the insurance ends up paying for is some initial bloodwork and the ultrasound — though if something came up that required a hospital delivery we’d obviously be covered at that point.

Now, if people actually had visibility to their medical costs, and benefitted from picking lower cost options, I think we could be pretty confident that there would be a lot more people choosing to deliver with a midwife — either at home (which is probably the cheapest option) or through some other facility which involves more care, but still much less cost than a full hospital delivery.

I think this would in general be a very good thing — and I suspect that the same forces would end up significantly reducing the well-child costs of $4,500 during the first year.
Kurt says:

January 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm

Austin writes: it is interesting the Catechism uses “political community” rather than government and then society

Yes. Obviously the Church, who was directly involved in the development, design and structure of almost every social insurance system in western continential Europe, has a certain pride in the very institutions she helped create.

Particularly, I imagine she would like to defend the systems in those countries where medical care, pensions and family allowances are provided and administered by trade unions and other worker organizations (though financed by employers and the government).

Obviously, this system is an option where the Church has been successful in her teaching that worker organization is not only an indespensible right, but natural ordering of the economy.

While many conservatives grossly ill-informed as to the Church’s social teaching misuse the term ‘subsidiarity’ to suggest libertarianism or the American philosophy of “states’ rights”, subsidarity referes not to a level of government but of social organs, including trade unions and other intermediary institutions.

The Democratic health care plan is an extremely modest and conservative proposal. It leaves intact the existing private, commerical insurance system that conservatives defend so stridently and for 37 years have given a blind eye and a mute tongue to its financing of abortion (not that conservatives have ever said it is not a virtue to defend the unborn, its just that the defense of private enterprise has a certain pride of place in their principles).

But for us Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, replacing the role of private, commerical health insuranace companies with worker controlled organizations such as trade unions would be a much prefered system. It allows for particpation and control of these institutions.

If only…
Henry Karlson says:

January 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm

Kurt,

You can tell Austin is trying all kinds of things, such as the sola catechisma argument. Of course, if he looked beyond the catechism he would see the Church talking about government often.

Example?

69. To ensure the common good, the government of each country has the specific duty to harmonize the different sectoral interests with the requirements of justice[358]. The proper reconciling of the particular goods of groups and those of individuals is, in fact, one of the most delicate tasks of public authority. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that in the democratic State, where decisions are usually made by the majority of representatives elected by the people, those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.

I wonder if he knows what document that comes from.

Soon after, it talks about universal destination of goods and private property; hence it says

177. Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and untouchable: “On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone”[372]. The principle of the universal destination of goods is an affirmation both of God’s full and perennial lordship over every reality and of the requirement that the goods of creation remain ever destined to the development of the whole person and of all humanity[373]. This principle is not opposed to the right to private property[374] but indicates the need to regulate it. Private property, in fact, regardless of the concrete forms of the regulations and juridical norms relative to it, is in its essence only an instrument for respecting the principle of the universal destination of goods; in the final analysis, therefore, it is not an end but a means[375].

Which then leads to this discussion:

82. The principle of the universal destination of goods requires that the poor, the marginalized and in all cases those whose living conditions interfere with their proper growth should be the focus of particular concern. To this end, the preferential option for the poor should be reaffirmed in all its force[384]. “This is an option, or a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods. Today, furthermore, given the worldwide dimension which the social question has assumed, this love of preference for the poor, and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without health care and, above all, those without hope of a better future”[385].

And of course, this

478. Entrepreneurs and directors of public agencies involved in the research, production and selling of products derived from new biotechnologies must take into account not only legitimate profit but also the common good. This principle, which holds true for every type of economic activity, becomes particularly important for activities that deal with the food supply, medicine, health care and the environment. By their decisions, entrepreneurs and public agency directors involved in this sector can guide developments in the area of biotechnologies towards very promising ends as far as concerns the fight against hunger, especially in poorer countries, the fight against disease and the fight to safeguard the ecosystem, the common patrimony of all.

I know, it’s not the catechism, so I guess for some, it is meaningless….
Austin Ruse says:

January 31, 2010 at 9:27 am

Kurt,
Most Catholics understand the term subsidiarity not to mean libertarianism but roughly speaking federalism.
Austin Ruse says:

January 31, 2010 at 9:48 am

That is to say, most politically conservative Catholics….
Kurt says:

January 31, 2010 at 2:30 pm

Austin,

I think you are correct that most politically conservative Catholic understand it that way. They also are mistaken. Subsidarity is not fully understood if just taken to mean which level of civil government (in the American context, one of the most decentralized and layered governmental systems in the world, to mean federal/state/local).

Subsidarity in its fullness refers not to levels of government but all social organs with an eye to the ability of people to participate.

The three most referenced in CST would be the Church herself, the family and worker organization. Of course, this implies that the Church, the family and trade unions are freely allowed to exist and even promoted by society and the state.

Sadly, the strident hostility to trade unions by poliitcal conservatives is in direct contraction to CST and the ability to employ subsidiarity.

One is led to assume when conservatives do speak of subsidarity, they do not mean addressing social concerns at the level they can be most effectively addressed, but at a level that is ineffective at addressing such concerns.
Austin Ruse says:

January 31, 2010 at 3:51 pm

Kurt,

I said, “Roughly speaking” federalism and this “roughly speaking” refers to institutions other than government, most especially the family. I think politically conservative Catholics have a very strong understanding of federalism as opposed to politically liberal Catholics who seem to begin adn end with the largest institutions of government. If it is not done by the federal government, somehow we are not being good Catholics.
Ronald King says:

January 31, 2010 at 6:04 pm

Austin, It seems that the federal government steps in because we catholics have failed.
Austin Ruse says:

January 31, 2010 at 7:13 pm

A future Pope will one day apologize for all those Catholics who did nothing or were complicit in the killing of children in the womb in just the same way JP the Great apologized for those Catholics complicit in the Holocaust. Who on this blog will he apologize for? You, Ronald? Others?
Austin Ruse says:

January 31, 2010 at 7:18 pm

And by the way, the US government, private charities/foundations and individuals give billions to help the sick and the poor. On the other hand, these same entities and people protect the killing of children in the womb.
Kurt says:

January 31, 2010 at 7:43 pm

Austin,

I am aware of American conservative’s historic attachment to the principle of states right. I think however you overestimate that progressives support the contrary. Again, we certainly would like to see matters resolved on the shop floor through collective bargaining.

Also, I take it you have not been following the debate over bank pre-emption.
Austin Ruse says:

February 1, 2010 at 6:20 am

I take the mention of states rights to be slur that i will let pass. If we believe in subsidiarity then we believe that sometimes the state is the level of society that should properly handle a problem. If we believe in subsidiarity, as i often tell conservative audiences, then there is even a place for the UN.

bank preemtion? Nope.
Ronald King says:

February 1, 2010 at 10:14 am

Austin, I believe we are all complicit in this culture of death that results in mothers choosing to have an abortion because we males have proven that we are better at fact finding and arguing than we are at sacrificing and creating peace.
We males exhibit very clearly to everyone what we truly believe about our faith and the limits to which we will sacrifice our comfort and security.
Austin, we males must create something outside the materialistic structures we have been functioning within to create change. It seems that the progress we make is in relationship to the sacrifice made.
The greater the sacrifice the greater the progress.
This is where Gandhi’s example is extremely important to consider.
Austin, you are in a position to have a tremendous influence on just discussing with other leaders the possibility of such a unifying and passionate expression of the love that is our faith and what we will sacrifice for our love for mothers and their children.
Imagine all of the catholic organizations being united under one umbrella and praying the Rosary as they walk across the U.S. with EWTN’s mobile unit broadcasting their daily programs from the road. Route 66 sounds like a good start. This would be like a relay. People volunteering one week a month to relieve others so they return to their jobs. Imagine the youth that would love to stick it to the man in this radical act of freedom. Imagine every well known celebrity that would want to join such a beautiful and loving act of faith. Imagine how much money would be raised and the attention brought to pregnancy centers around the country that support mothers. Imagine how many more services would be provided for their well-being through such an act.

All we need is the faith of a mustard seed.
If you think I am crazy then just tell me so and I will not bother you anymore.
God Bless all of us half-dead creatures who are attempting to save ourselves from further discomfort.
Austin Ruse says:

February 1, 2010 at 2:31 pm

Ronald,

This is just not what i do. I monitor and lobby the UN on life and family matters. There are such mass movements of prayer, as i mentioned before. Perhaps you should hook into them? There is Crossroads, which is a cross the country walk for college students. Check them out. As i have tried to stress in these posts here. The pro-life movement is not a single thing, does not speak with a single voice, does not act in lock step. There is something for every calling, including yours Ronald!
Ronald King says:

February 1, 2010 at 3:27 pm

Austin, You are not understanding what I am saying. I know of these other matters. Anybody can do what they do from the road. Austin I understand very clearly what you are saying. You do not understand what I am saying.
What I am telling you has been totally misunderstood by every movement. We are fragmented both physically and spiritually and we are being deceived that we are united. We must be united physically and spiritually in love with a focus on spreading that love through a common sacrifice that is greater than the evil that inhibits everyone from fully realizing the common human trance of our limited vision.
Everybody is holding on to their movement and unable to look beyond that movement to see what is actually necessary for immediate effectiveness. The fragmentation real and the belief that we are united in this fragmentation is delusional and we move along at a snail’s pace never thinking that the crisis of death calls for immediate supernatural sacrifice.
If you do not understand just say so. You cannot see what I see but I see what you see and it is limited.
I am sad that extroverts seem to rise to power while the introvert is relegated to either following or misuderstood and ignored.

Vox Nova