Did This Just Happen?
When I went to bed last night, I heard that the Democrats and Republicans had reached a deal. I searched, without success, to find out if Planned Parenthood had, in fact, been defunded. This morning I read that “Planned Parenthood defunding was traded for a higher number of cuts.” I did not read this over at the National Catholic Reporter or Commonweal or America, those places in the blogosphere that, along with Vox Nova, might have predicted this move. No. I read it at Lifesitenews.
I know next to nothing about the American political process and so I often refrain from comment when stuff like this happens, but this one seems to lack any other explanation than the fact that the Republican leadership considers opposition to abortion little more than a useful bargaining chip to gain cuts to the budget.
As I said, I know next to nothing about how the American system works. Please relieve my ignorance. What are those Catholics who have insisted that Republicans are the only party we can vote for – because, despite any flaws, they are on the side of the angels in the most important human rights issue of our day – saying about this one? Is John Boehner the new Bart Stupak? Or is this all part of some master plan? Must we simply wait and trust that the GOP knows what it is doing here?
Brett Salkeld is a doctoral student in theology at Regis College in Toronto. He is a father of two (so far) and husband of one.
Comments are closed.
Defunding Planned Parenthood wasn’t and isn’t a politically viable option, so it’s interesting, to say the least, that it was allegedly a point of major contention blocking an agreement.
I imagine that some members of Congress, especially the newbies, genuinely want to see Planned Parenthood lose government funding for moral reasons (as oppose to a view about the role of government), but I’m less than credulous about a party that increased federal funding from 2000-2006 when they controlled Congress and the White House.
@Kyle: Given the recent trends of the Republican Party and the sticking points of the budget deal, I’m guessing that the GOP was hoping to hold Planned Parenthood hostage to get the EPA cuts that the corporate interests were pushing for. I hope I’m bring overly cynical, but I doubt it.
In good news, the EPA cuts didn’t happen either, so there’s at least one pro-life provision (from an ecological stance) that stands.
The GOP has for years given lip service to the uber right-wing religious in this country. The dutifully puts forth the legislation only to shrug at the end and say, ‘we tried.’ No one knows when the right-wing will wake up to this.
The GOP is and always has been obout one thing, making things as easy as it can for business regardless of the consequences and keeping the money in the hands of the rich.
PPH is a organization that devotes NO federal monies to abortion. That is a small portion of its work which is to see that poor women in America receive adequate health treatment as to issues of breast cancer and cervical cancer. It’s work to provide low-income women with family planning assistance, in the end PREVENTS the need for abortion in significant numbers. Thus one might consider than PPH is pro-life in a much bigger way than the uber right-wing religious would ever admit to.
Obviously family planning is still not accepted in our Church in terms of contraception, but of course we all know the statistics as well. Fully 98% of all Catholics see the rationale in avoiding abortion, sexually transmitted disease, and being able to properly care for born children as a good reason to follow one’s own conscious on this issue.
PP apparently considers abortion a significant enough portion of its work that it is willing to put all its funding in jeopardy by continuing to be engaged in it.
If abortion is really such a small part of PP, why would they continue to do this? Why wouldn’t they get out of a politically explosive business like abortion to help ensure that the “vital services” they provide are not threatened?
PP, using private funds, is a significant abortion provider. I don’t think there is any serious doubt there.
The question is, could PP apply for federal contracts, none of which fund abortion. The Republican leadership never intended it to be enacted, which gave them the freedom to craft the amendment in a rhetorical way rather than a legislative.
For one more note, your 98% figure of Catholic who believe Catholics should follow their conscience on contraception is too low; it’s 100%.
The difference, is that I, and a good number of other Catholics whom I suspect add up to more that 2%, believe that Catholics also have a duty to form their conscience from the teachings of the Church, both Scripture and Tradition, including the teachings of the Magisterium, which advise against the use of contraception.
–
“Thus one might consider than PPH is pro-life in a much bigger way than the uber right-wing religious would ever admit to.”
Yes, and one could consider the US military, to be “pro-peace” in a much bigger way because it acts against murderous dictators and prevent conflicts from escalating into larger wars.
One could do that, but then one would be fooling oneself, likely willfully.
Abortion funding was never on the table during the budget negotiations – per federal law, Planned Parenthood can’t use federal funds to pay for abortions. The GOP was trying to eliminate all Title X funding, which would have cut the free cancer screenings, family planning counseling, and other non-abortive services that Planned Parenthood and other organizations provide.
As to the Republicans being the anti-abortion party, I still ask why, during the six years the Republicans had control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress (200-2006), they did not pass a single meaningful bill to prevent abortions but passed many policies that increased the fiscal and social pressure on the poor to have abortions by making increasing the financial hardships of single-parent and low-income families…
Planned Parenthood (what a misnomer!) provides SDT testing, and cervical cancer is an STD caused by the human papilloma virus, so in that sense they provide cancer screenings. But they do not provide breast cancer screening as some people think, and they encourage the behaviors that lead to HPV infection to begin with.
My long-held belief is that abortion is one of the few real wedge issues between Democrats and Republicans, and the single-biggest fundraising issue for the latter. As such, according to this belief, the GOP has no vested interest in seeing abortion restricted in any meaningful way, let alone rendered illegal. I’m sure there are Republican legislators who are sincerely pro-life, but they are not the majority. Abortion has been legal for 38 years, and for most of that time there have been Republican majorities in Congress, and at no time has any meaningful anti-abortion legislation been passed or even floated.
The real agenda of the GOP — as evidenced by the actions of its members in Congress — seems to be to restrict power and wealth to the wealthy and powerful by enacting legislation favorable to big business and wealthy individuals, and to increase those groups’ wealth and power.
In my opinion, and I’m hardly alone, the GOP has blindfolded social conservatives and taken them for a long ride. I’m not sure when social conservatives will realize that they have been dumped by the side of the road.
A disclaimer: I’m a social conservative, but not what is called a “fiscal” conservative. I can’t seem to reconcile the morality of restricting abortion with the immorality of tax cuts for the rich. And I rarely vote in national elections, because my conscience just doesn’t make room for that.
By not voting you ARE part of the problem.
Other than that I know of no answer. The Bishops have to get off their -what ever- and do something. They would if the Democrats did do this.
Sorry, but I won’t vote for a pro-abortion-rights candidate, and I won’t vote for a pro-big-business, anti-poor, anti-child candidate either. That doesn’t leave me much choice.
Basically what Pentimento said. The only thing I would add is that the Republican party is at least somewhat opposed to abortion, because they want poor people to produce a disproportionate number of children. They’re not opposed to it enough to actually try to outlaw it o even seriously restrict it, they just want to make sure that it’s hard enough for poor women to get, so that the major corporations whose interests they defend will be able to hire enough workers at minimum wage.
I see many conservatives say that the government shouldnt be putting money into places like Planned Parenthood because it’s not the governments role to do so. Yet if that is the case, then it is not the governments role to funnel money into Faith Based Organizations or churches. Why do they not bring this up?
Sometimes I honestly feel that abortion is just a distraction. Social Security is not an “entitlement,” neither is Medicare or Medicaid. They are investment programs which are paid for by taking monies alloted to them and investing them in T-bonds, which by law are interest-bearing. They are not “lockbox” programs into which money is put in and then taken out directly later on. These programs were set up to help those who most need it and do so very well. That Congress has been borrowing from SS since 1940 is no secret; the trustees report for the SSA is available.
That nobody wants to spare the budget crisis by axing crap programs like the new fighter jet program that costs more than AUSTRALIA is shameful. Social Security and the DOD budget are 2/3 of our GDP. I forget what the DOD’s share is but it is gigantic. Taking stuff away from the people that either just don’t have it or need it will serve us little.
This is war on the middle class. Make no mistake about it. If you want to know what America was like before the Social Security program was started, to give you a glimpse 1/2 of seniors lived below subsistence level. Those that didn’t have family or friends to take them in went to the “poor houses.” Today, it is projected that if SS was taken away that level will return to 1 of every 2 seniors will be living below subsistence level. That’s even below poverty.
There is no indication that the war on the middle class will cease. Every year billions of dollars are spent by, well, by billionaires to further their cause of scaring people about “entitlement” programs and manipulating public servants to get what they want. Meanwhile, ordinary Americans are getting less and less for their dollar and arguing over issues like abortion.
The right wing noise machine is powered by money. And anyone who isn’t making more than 380K/ year is being relentlessly pounded by it. Whether you choose to listen to it or not is up to you but when you wake up one day and wonder why your broke and you are so miserable and your food sucks and your car only gets 28mpg, and your IRA is worthless, and you’ve been handed down a voucher for social security benefits, and you have to go the privatized mail company to pay $4 for a stamp to mail in your payment for health insurance that doesn’t do you any good, at least you can feel good about fighting the good fight over abortion.
The social conservative GOPers view toward the unborn is still strong. In fact for all the Conservative Catholic Quarter backing in blogland I was pretty impressed how long the GOP stuck it out.
This s the problem. The pro-life movement had not really helped aid public opinion on this. In the past couple of weeks I heard no uptick in commercials or ads in the three conservative Congressional district I am around and travel through that are represented by one DEM and 2 GOPers.
In a sense I can’t fault the pro-life movement for that since placing media buys in the uncertain political dynamic of all this is a problem.
I think someone had the sense that people not getting tax refund checks, and the million of other constant stories of woe we would see on TV would beat out standing just on the PP funding issue. Further we are just starting this and are round 1. We got the debt ceiling and then of course the big battle for the upcoming budget. This is all going to occur in the next few months. I am pretty confident that some reduction to PP will occur. Though I know it is political impossibility that wih just controlling one half of the legislative that a complete will happen. That is just the facts.
However we did not start getting the truth out about PP. A lot of Americans know things they did not before. I am pretty optimistic. Further there is no doubt about the Catholic speakers pro-life bona fides. So again I am seeing the glas half full here
Government funding for Planned Parenthood does not pay for abortions. (And please let’s not have the “money is fungible” argument again. )
The Republican proposal to cut off government funds for Planned Parenthood was not a serious “pro-life” proposal, although I am sure many pro-lifers seriously want to see Planned Parenthood lose all government funding. Planned Parenthood would no doubt continue to be the exact same abortion provider it is today even if federal funds—none of which pay for abortions— for family planning were cut off.
More importantly, defunding Planned Parenthood was not a serious budget proposal. I am no apologist for the Republican Party, but those of you who hate Planned Parenthood and oppose abortion should take heart that pro-life Republicans tried this at all. Check out the New York Times article titled Late Clash on Abortion Shows Conservatives’ Sway.
Are any of you seriously suggesting that we should have had a government shut-down over the issue of government funding for non-abortion health services just because those services are delivered and paid for through Planned Parenthood? You should be upset with the Republicans not for backing down on this issue, but for what the cuts they did make will do to the poor, the sick, and the disabled.
I’m not sure why the fungibility of money is dismissed out of hand, but fine, I won’t go there.
Rest assured, David, I am upset about the cuts they did make. I am especially upset that they used the unborn as a foil to make those cuts.
I think arguing about the fungibility of money is a red herring. As Kurt has argued in the past, no one who makes the argument is willing to make it consistently. If tax dollars to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion service are in reality funding abortion, then tax dollars to religious organizations for nonreligious purposes are in reality government contributions to religion, and consequently unconstitutional.
David,
Some would disagree with your statement that government contributions to religious institutions are unconstitutional; the alternative is that government contributions to religion is permissible as long as it is done in a neutral way that doesn’t “establish” a religion.
Thales,
David didn’t say that “that government contributions to religious institutions are unconstitutional.” He said that if you accept the same theories of fungibility as some are doing with PP, then it would be unconstitutional.
David is entirely correct. If the government is funding abortion by giving a Title X contract to PP when it is the qualified low bidder, then it is funding High Mass when a Catholic agency is awarded a government contract.
Brett:
If the funding had nothing to do with abortions, then in what way were the unborn being used as a foil?
Did I say the funding had nothing to do with abortions? That doesn’t sound like me.
Kurt,
You misunderstand my point. Assuming the fungibility argument, I’m saying that some would still disagree with the position that funding religious organizations is unconstitutional — because some disagree that the 1st amendment prohibits government funding religion, but some think that the 1st allows government funding of religion, as long as it is done in a neutral way that doesn’t establish one particular religion over another.
Thales,
In a nation of 300 million, I have no doubt some think that way. However, we have nothing in our judicial history — not even a minority, dissenting opinion — that allows federal financing of liturgical worship or evangelization.
The federal money that PP receives subsidizes the abortifacient birth control pill, which is no different from surgical abortion.
The Republicans’ “plan” was doomed to fail long before it began. They didn’t have the votes in the Senate or even in the House to pull something like this, and they knew this. Their supposed attempt to defund Planned Parenthood was just a strategy to make themselves look pro-life.
My view is that, until some authentically pro-life politicians come along, we just shouldn’t vote. (This would exclude voting for pro-life Republicans who want to screw over the poor.) Catholics need to boycott the political system until some half-way decent politicians come along. Why are we letting Republicans get our vote? Seriously, why?
This is generally my sentiment too.
Defunding Planned Parenthood by itself will not stop government funds being used for the allegedly “abortifacient” birth control pill. As long as Title X is funded, government funds for family planning would just go to other organizations. Also, Medicaid covers the cost of birth control pills. Whether or not the Mexico City Policy is in effect, government funds are spent on family planning overseas that includes the use of birth control pills. Many states require insurance companies to cover contraceptives, and of course the cost of prescription contraceptives is deductible as a medical expense on your income taxes.
So if you want to go after Planned Parenthood because it provides the pill, to be consistent you have to go after Medicaid, income tax deductions, USAID, and states that mandate contraceptive coverage in private insurance, not to mention insurers that pay for the cost of contraceptives, probably 99.9% of drugstores in the United States, and companies like Johnson & Johnson who make huge profits selling oral contraceptives and contraceptive patches.
Should one boycott pharmacies that sell “abortifacient” birth control pills? Should one boycott the products (like Tylenol) of companies (like Johnson & Johnson) that manufacture birth control pills? If one is prescribed a generic drug, should one find out who the manufacturer is and make sure that manufacturer does not also make generic birth control pills?
Can anyone give a reasonable and fair-minded analysis, or point to one somewhere on the web, of that the impact would be of cutting off all future government funds to Planned Parenthood?
Would it have an impact on the number of abortions performed in the United States?
Would it decrease government spending, and by how much?
Would the non-abortion services Planned Parenthood could no longer provide be provided by other organizations, or would the services not get provided at all?
Just a question. If President Obama and the Democratic led Senate had not opposed defunding Planned Parenthood, would the GOP had caved and allowed funding? As noted above, it seems the GOP hung in there a long time. Perhaps it was political. But part of politics is the art of the possible. The GOP may have decided that with such Democratic opposition, there was no way they could pass the resolution. Then given how the media and blogs respond, they would have taken the blame and lost not just the riders but the funding issues.
I ask this also because there seems ionly to have been a partial failure regarding abortion. The GOP did persevere in blocking Federal funding of abortions for DC. Something which the Dems also opposed but on which they ultimately went along with the GOP.
I think this line from Politico actually sums it up:
“Democrats beat back Republican attempts to cut funding for women’s health services, including for organizations like Planned Parenthood.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52850.html#ixzz1J3IXpXoD
Brett
American political parties are coalitions. It could be said in distinction to Parliamentary forms where the coalitions are formed after the election, in the US Presidential system the coalition pre-exist the election. These are not differing degrees on a left right scale but different groups with different philosophical sources.
For example in the last presidential election President Obama expanded the Democratic coalition and John McCain could barely get lip service from the usual Republican groups. In the last congressional election the Republicans reconsolidated their coalition and the Democrats had major cracks in theirs.
The Social Conservative portion of the Republicans are a key element but there their are other groups that are just as important and some of them are not pro-life but they stay mum on pro-life because of the issues of common agreement.
Another item of the electorate is that approximately 20% are pro-abortion to the point that it is a qualifing issue for their vote and about 20% see pro-life as a qualifying issue. The rest, though leaning more prolife, wish the issue would dry up and blow away. They are inclined to react negatively to some one from either side who forces the issue. From a tactical point of view it is not an issue for either side imitate General Custer. But budget concerns will draw a much larger support. To get into a positions where it can get results that please both all parts of the coalition it is best to emphasize the fiscal.
Hence they agreed to this deal as step one.
only 3% of planned parenthood’s spending goes to abortion. and we already have a law saying that federal money given to planned parenthood can’t be used to fund abortions.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/04/chart-of-the-day-3.html
So I’m not really sure why de-funding planned parenthood would demonstrate commitment to making abortion illegal….
To those commenters here who don’t think Planned Parenthood is a problematic institution, I present Abby Johnson’s take – someone who I trust as having better information about how PP actually works.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/05/abby-johnson-planned-parenthood-business-model-all-about-abortion/
A couple of years ago, I seem to remember people on Vox Nova here saying that Harry Reid was a pro-life politician. His words and actions over the last several days, not only about PP but about direct taxpayer-funding of abortion in DC, seems to indicate otherwise.
To those commenters here who don’t think Planned Parenthood is a problematic institution
I think PP is more than a problematic institution, it is a horrid institution. That doesn’t have anything to do with the amendment the GOP crafted. There are rules for barring bad actors from federal contracts I and would support looking at those rules to see if they are lax on the kinds of actions PP has been accused of.
But no, barring a particularly organization by name from the right to bid on a federal contract because you don’t like them is wrong.
this one seems to lack any other explanation than the fact that the Republican leadership considers opposition to abortion little more than a useful bargaining chip to gain cuts to the budget.
Brett,
I would say that the GOP is serious in wanting to have PP defunded, but that since politics is the “art of the possible”, they had to give it up because the Democrats refused to go along and were going to stay like that, making the government shut down — and then the GOP would be accused of shutting the government down over “women’s health”, etc. So it’s a political calculation, but that’s what politics is. (It’s one I disagree with, since I don’t have a problem with the government shutting down, but one that I understand considering the narrative that would be portrayed in the media – “shutting down the government because they want to attack women’s health”).
There is a bigger battle coming: next year’s budget with even more cuts and PP remains on the chopping block.
If you’re dismayed by the GOP in the USA, what do you think of the political landscape in Canada? The GOP is willing to have a debate in the US over stopping taxpayer funding for non-abortion services at PP, while this topic is simply unfathomable in the Canada (where Harper and the Conservatives vote against modest abortion-related bills which would pass unanimously in the US, and taxpayer funding for abortions, much less non-abortion services at PP, is set in stone and will never be questioned.)
Oh, and Brett, to give you a little more information:
The GOP in the House has already voted and passed a bill defunding PP. So it’s not just a matter of talk – they’ve already acted. And then this was put into the government-funding plan, but had to been taken out because the Democrat opposition in order to avoid the government shutting down. But the bill to defund PP still remains, now by itself, and it now goes to the Senate for approval. If you want to see PP defunded, it is up for Democrat Senators to vote in favor, and if PP doesn’t get defunded, the blame is not with the GOP.
At the same token, if they felt they had the country on their side and if they as you say that the majority of people in America are pro life, they could have shut the government down over it. What it comes down to is that Planned Parenthood didnt crash the market, wipe out our 401k’s, and took TARP money. So why is it that the one’s that did do all of that, are not required to pay at least their share in taxes?
Regarding Thales’ 8:42AM comment about the GOP passing PP-defunding legislation: This ignores John du Bois’s point (made by others as well), that the GOP did not act while they had control of both houses and the presidency, when they would have had to take full responsibility for whatever social and political consequences followed. Instead, they act when they do not have control, and they neither risk being “blamed” if the action fails nor if it succeeds.
It sure looks like a very cynical mis-use of Pro-Life for political end, and it is amazing that the Pro-Life “leaders” seem unaware of being used this way.
Frank,
I agree with you — the GOP are often hypocritical and acted irresponsibly when they had the power of both houses and the presidency. Some would say that the Tea Party sentiment is pushing them to be more serious now when it comes to making cuts in government spending (and when you’re talking about cutting government spending, PP is a logical choice to start before entitlement programs, etc.). I don’t know whether they will remain serious — it seems inevitable that the political party in power, whatever it is, always becomes complacent and unprincipled as it remains in power, and only rediscovers integrity when it is in the minority.
So sure, the GOP was neglectful in the past. But at least they’re trying to do something now.
@Cindy, You are right. PP did not cause the banking crisis. All they did was kill several million babies. How can a Catholic even think abut defending this organization?
I would say that the GOP is serious in wanting to have PP defunded,
They are not serious. The evidence is not in their votes but in the drafting of the amendment. It is unconstitutional (Article I, section 9) and totally opposed to our system of laws.
They could have at least been in the ballpark by drafting it like the Maryland Big Box Medicaid recovery bill, but they did not. There is the proof.
Sorry, Kurt, I don’t understand why you think it is unconstitutional to defund PP. PP is not entitled to any funds under the constitution.
Oh, from below, it looks like Kurt subscribes to the bill of attainder argument. I don’t find that persuasive. So Congress can decide to fund an organization by choice (ie, the organization is not entitled to the funds in any way), and then is later prohibited from withdrawing funding because this would be a bill of attainder? That sounds goofy to me.
Congress does not fund PP by choice. Congress fund Title X, not naming any particular organization. Organizations then make contracts bid and the Administration awards them based on the ability of a group to best carry out the requirements of the contact. PP’s current contracts have been awarded by Republican and Democratic administrations.
I think the confusion over this matter simply shows how dishonest the GOP and the Right to Life Movement are. (as well as the absolute lie recently that federal taxpayers are funding DC Medicaid abortions).
Kimberly,
We are in a country where everyone has fallen farther from just what they really are. Social safety net programs are not spared. WIC, a program that uses federal money to subsidize the food and nutrition needs of children from low-income families, is cut by more than $500 million. My question is, if you can’t care for people that are born into this world, and for mothers that really struggle and need the assistance, then how can you expect others in the world to care for the unborn in this world? That is what I am so fustrated with. Caring for life goes much beyond just the unborn, life is a process from birth and through the span of say 80years or so. So we live in a world, that isnt showing care for seniors at the end of life, and we are not showing care for the lower income children that exist either. Being pro life, one should care for all of it. How can one call themselves a Catholic and not care about all of life? Again, it has been pointed out that this was going no where anyways. It is just a dog and pony show for the world and at the end of the day, the reality is, nothing changed. The abortion debate is just a distraction because it is legal in this country. Instead of arguing over a battle that ends the same, that changes nothing, and that distracts people from the real care being cut away, we should be focusing on the budget at hand that really is hurting the lower income and the poor in this country. It’s dispicable that they are cutting assistance for homeless Vets in this country. It’s dispicable that they are cutting WIC. Yet here we are, arguing about abortion, again.
(as well as the absolute lie recently that federal taxpayers are funding DC Medicaid abortions).
What do you mean by this? All the news I’m hearing, whether it be on the left or right, all acknowledge the rider that was passed prohibiting tax money to fund DC abortions. Is everyone lying about that?
What do you mean by this? All the news I’m hearing, whether it be on the left or right, all acknowledge the rider that was passed prohibiting tax money to fund DC abortions. Is everyone lying about that?
There was no debate about prohibiting the use of federal tax dollars from funding DC abortions. The Democrats have voted and supported that for years and included that provision in the Appropriations bill in FY10 when they controlled both chambers of Congress.
There was no debate about prohibiting the use of federal tax dollars from funding DC abortions.
What do you mean, there is no debate? The news on both the right and left said that this was a change in the current status.
What do you mean, there is no debate?
Let me say it one more time. The Democratic bill prohibited the use of federal tax dollars for DC abortions (using Hyde criteria). There was never any proposal to remove this restriction. Those asserting there was an effort to spend federal tax dollars such are either misinformed or dishonest.
Kurt,
I wonder whether we are talking about different things, because I don’t understand you.
Consider this example: here is a liberal website, quoting Dem. Senators Reid and Milkuski, who are talking about the fact that they don’t like the new GOP rider prohibiting taxes for abortions in DC, but that this was better than having the government shut down. Your characterization of the political situation doesn’t correspond to that described here by Reid and by news article I’ve read, and so I wonder whether we are talking about different things.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/reid-government-shutdown-would-have-hurt-dc-more-than-abortion-rider.php
Kurt,
Now as I go over the conversation, I wonder whether you’re making a distinction about federal taxes going to DC abortions, instead of local taxes going to DC abortions. But I don’t know why you’re making that distinction. I’m talking about the GOP rider on DC abortions, which changed the status quo in DC. I think that was a good thing. I think you think it was a hypocritical and corrupt act by the pro-life movement — and I don’t understand why you’re saying that.
Thales,
You are free to think that is a good thing. But no one is free to be dishonest. There were plenty of false assertions about federal tax dollars going to pay for abortions in DC. Or just as false but more indirect, people (who were not DC taxpayers) saying “my tax dollars” were funding abortion. Congress allows 17 states to fund abortions but not DC.
There were plenty of false assertions about federal tax dollars going to pay for abortions in DC.
I dunno – I didn’t hear any during the debate the last couple of weeks over DC abortions. But if you heard inaccuracies, obviously that was improper. And if they were made, I very much doubt that they were being made with the express intent to mislead (and thus I doubt they were lies and proof of the pro-life movement’s corruption).
Our options are either the Republican party, which is mildly opposed or indifferent on abortion, or the Demcoratic party, which is adamantly in favor of abortion, so much so that they are willing to claim that will shutdown the federal government to preserve Planned Parenthood’s funding. So yes, the GOP still wins this issue fairly convincingly even if they’re still pretty poor.
I would say that Boehner is a Stupak, except that he did get abortion defunded in DC. So while he got very little, he did get something, which makes it a little better than Stupak’s sell-out.
Ideological inflexibility is not the same thing as political principle. Rooting for a government shutdown –especially over these comparatively small cuts and social issue riders — is a sign of extremism and irresponsibility.
I’m not a fan of the way the GOP used PP funding as a bargaining chip, but here’s another way of thinking about it.
The Democrats’ were willing to cut $2 for the poor to save $1 for Planned Parenthood.
The Senate Majority Leader, whom I am regularly assured in these comment boxes is pro-life, took the opportunity to cast those who have a problem with funding an organization that performs hundreds of thousands of abortions a year as woman-hating extremists.
In any instance, we’ve seemed to reach a political state where spending on things problematic to Catholics (wars, Planned Parenthood) are sacrosanct, but spending to lift up the poor can be bargained away, and government employees must have their compensation and benefits cut as much or more than private employees have.
We’ve got a lot of work to do.
To put it another way, I don’t think the argument is that it is impossible that another party could present a set of positions that is preferable to what the Republicans are offering.
The argument is that the current Democratic Party is not such an alternative. And given that they are willing to trade large cuts to programs for the poor to save small cuts to Planned Parenthood, it does not strike me as a ridiculous argument.
John,
I appreciate your sincerity but think you are totally off base. This issue has nothing to do with abortion funding. It has to do with a government program that follows subsidarity by following a competitive bidding process.
You want ban a particular organization by name because of what they do beyond fulfillment of any of these contracts they are the low bidder on.
First, it is unconstitutional (the term is a Bill of Attainder).
Second, it a dangerous practice. It allows the Legislative Branch to assume the powers of the Judiciary. It is fundamentally offensive to the American system of government.
Third, by extension, it endangers every other group including Catholic agencies that are awarded government contracts. And, it endangers fiscal discipline. Imagine Congress decideding to ban Rockwell from defense contracts because General Electric lobbied to do so.
It really shows the corruption of the pro-life movement that they make deals like this with the GOP while not being serious about protecting the unborn.
I said above that I find the bill of attainder argument to be not persuasive.
And it’s a dangerous practice to let Congress decide where it spends Congressional money? That sounds like the very duty of Congress.
And it’s a dangerous practice to let Congress decide where it spends Congressional money? That sounds like the very duty of Congress.
Well, what I am asking for is consistency. While I would respectfully disagree with you, I would invite you to make your case — disengaged from any particular issue — that Congress should do way with current government contracting practices and simply name in legislation the particular defense contractors, health clinic, IT company, etc. that should carry out various federal contracts.
Oh yes, and write into the Labor/HHS appropriations bill that Ramona Ramirez not receive a Pell Grant — not after what I heard she did at the senior prom —disgusting.
AMEN. The whole thing stinks.
Of course, the money that goes to Planned Parenthood is not spent on abortions and is spent to a large degree on the poor. I can understand the pro-life hatred for Planned Parenthood as an abortion provider, but I do not understand blurring the line between funding abortion and funding health care services largely to low income women through an organization that also performs abortions.
Abortion is an integral part of what Planned Parenthood does, but it counts for less than 15% of Planned Parenthood’s revenue, and accounts for only 3% of visits from its clients. Pro-lifers are big on the issue of conscience protection, but apparently consciences of those who believe in abortion rights are not worthy of protection. Unless someone can actually prove Planned Parenthood uses government funds for abortions, it is simply discriminatory not to award them government contracts because they perform abortions. It is a legal service, constitutionally protected, and Planned Parenthood should not be penalized for providing it with funding kept separate from taxpayer dollars.
I would love to encourage those who feel Republicans betrayed them or the pro-life cause here, because I think antipathy for Republicans is a good thing. But it seems to me this was an honest try on the part of some pro-life “enthusiasts” to strike a blow against Planned Parenthood. I am amazed they succeeded to the length they did.
Unless someone can actually prove Planned Parenthood uses government funds for abortions, it is simply discriminatory not to award them government contracts because they perform abortions.
The word “discriminatory” has obviously bad connotations to things like discrimination based on sex, race, age, or sexual orientation.
It is also “discriminatory” for me to decide not to hire someone who arrives at an interview with alcohol on his breath. It is “discriminatory” to not allow my daughter to date someone who honks the horn for her to get in rather than coming to the door.
And yes, it is discriminatory not give funds to the largest abortion provider. I’m OK with that. In a country where we don’t let the Boy Scouts meet in public school classrooms because they don’t have openly gay leaders, I’m not getting the vapors that the largest abortion provider might be “punished” by not receiving federal funding.
Others think the PP stats are this:
-12% of services are abortions, not 3%
-40% of revenue is from abortions, not 15%
-340 abortions for every one adoption referral and 47 abortions for every one prenatal care client
-330,000+ abortions done a year
As I said above, I find the bill of attainder and “Congress can’t discriminate on the basis of abortion” arguments strange and unpersuasive. So Congress can decide to grant an institution funding, but then is prohibited from withdrawing funding later? That doesn’t make sense to me.
Let’s assume you’re right, though — the government can’t discriminate. If the KKK comes in with a bid to do some service $1 less than some organization with no moral problems, then the government has to give the contract to the KKK. To do otherwise would be discriminatory, and we can’t have that.
This is a stronger case for small government than anything the Tea Party could offer.
If the federal government has to play this dumb, then I want the federal government to do as little as possible.
In a country where we don’t let the Boy Scouts meet in public school classrooms because they [expelled gays from their programs], I’m not getting the vapors that the largest abortion provider might be “punished” by not receiving federal funding.
Except no public school has ever passed a requirement that the BSA by name cannot use its facilities. And no public school has refused to rent at market rate its facilities to the BSA. (akin to letting a group bid on a contract).
Some public schools have decided not to give as a free gift use of their facilities to groups who will exclude gay boys and girls from their programs, as well as those who would exclude based on gender, religion or race). (akin to a subsidy of the objectionable practice).
The Republicans had free reign in crafting their amendment. In fact, they had the MCP language. The decided not to purposefully to make a rhetorical statement rather than a legislative statement. They did it so that reasonable, moderate legislators would not vote for it. Again, it is more evidence of the corruption of the pro-life movement.
If the KKK comes in with a bid to do some service $1 less than some organization with no moral problems, then the government has to give the contract to the KKK. To do otherwise would be discriminatory, and we can’t have that.
This is a stronger case for small government than anything the Tea Party could offer.
Organizations like the Klan with a history of criminal acts are already banned from bidding on most federal contracts (probably all). Congress enacts the criteria and the judicial branch (properly) judges cases.
This is an important part of our democracy and rule of law.
Certainly there are others in our society that would be happy to ban Catholic agencies from government contracts based on a history of facilitating child sexual abuse. Banning Catholic agencies by name would be equally wrong.
Nicolas Kristof had a related great opinion piece in todays paper – http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/opinion/10kristof.html?_r=1&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB
Thanks for posting that Grega.
(So when some lawmakers preen their anti-abortion feathers but take steps that would result in more abortions and more women dying in childbirth, that’s not governance, that’s hypocrisy.) It is interesting times when one considers that cutting PP funds that provide birth control, would actually increase abortions.
Cindy writes, “It is interesting times when one considers that cutting PP funds that provide birth control, would actually increase abortions.”
Shows how bad birth control is.
Agellis,
I’m not so sure. If birth control prevents many abortions, then why is it so bad? If it prevents STD’s, then why is it so bad? If abstenence worked, and if everyone in the world were a Catholic, it may be one thing. However, we live in a world where there are many different faith’s and many different walks of life. Athiests too. So to me, the larger preventer of unwanted pregnancies would be birth control. I also look around the pews at church, and certainly see families now a days with 1 or 2 children. Not 5 to 8 children like when I was growing up. You can claim it’s NFP, but I will speculate it’s birth control. It’s just reality. I’m just being a realist. I think most people use it. What runs through my mind, is that if we want less abortions, everyone better get off their duff’s and get into the lower income area’s and start working with them directly and teaching them religion. Because right now, you have government taking away things that help lower income mothers deal with trying to make ends meet. No WIC for them, no money for Homeless Vet’s, but they sure found money to fund tv adds with NASCAR to help lure our youth into the military machine. What I am saying is, the more help you cut from people, the more abortion is a likely outcome of choice for people. Being that it’s legal, it will result in more abortions.
Of course birth control is contrary to the gift of life and is thus contrary to CST. This not just morally so, but there is also good evidence that improved access to contraception does not reduce abortions:
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/contraception-fact-sheet-3-17-11.pdf
Cindy I fully agree with you – yes indeed looking around any catholic parish most certainly the average family size reflects that the large majority
of Catholics -just like any other group in our society -practices planned parenting. I actually think Planned Parenthood is a very important part of our society-and yes as a strictly secular organization Planned Parenthood very much reflects the status of the current law. As long as Abortions are legal most certainly organizations like Planned Parenthood are very much required and very useful to serve as a go between.
I must confess that I’m not in despair over the political system. Nothing unexpected occurred.
As difficult as it is to believe, there are times in the political process where one side loses. The most common way to achieve legislative goals is not to beat the other side over the head, but to get the other side to agree with you. Yes, there are exceptions to this, but they are exceptions for a reason.
As difficult as it is for people commenting here to believe, there is almost no support in society for punishing Planned Parenthood. By putting their funding in jeopardy, both parties were allowed to embolden constituencies. The Democrats believed they would be net beneficiaries so they were willing to allow a shutdown. The Republicans calculated that they had received the most benefit for running this up the flag pole and continuing to a shutdown would have harmed them.
Contrast this with programs for the poor. They don’t have support in either party. Both parties desire to represent the middle class. Any benefits for the poor in society are deemed to have been taken from the middle class.
Brett,
I think several people who have commented above have done a pretty good job of sketching the dynamics, but FWIW one more factor playing out in the minds of seriously pro-life Republican legislators (a breed which yet, contrary to general opinion here, does exist, though it’s obviously only a subset of Republicans, and not always a large one) was doubtless the contrafactual. Let’s say that they had the votes to continue to refuse to make a deal with the Democrats unless it included defunding Planned Parenthood. The result, it was pretty clear by Friday night, would be that the Democrats would also continue to back down or to pass a temporary funding agreement absent an agreement on the longer term budget, and so the government would “shut down”. Various offices would close, people would miss paychecks, some programs would stop taking care of people.
The fear among these pro-life legislators was doubtless that that narrative would be “Look at these ideological pro-lifer’s who shut down the government over wanting to defund Planned Parenthood when the money only goes to cover birth control and screenings, not abortions. This just shows that they care more about politics than about the poor people who are suffering with the government shut down.” (And let’s face it, many of the people making this argument would be the same people who are not making the argument that the GOP settling for budget cuts instead of defunding Planned Parenthood also shows that the primary GOP objective is hurting poor people — that’s just a given for them.)
One of the things those legislators have got to have been thinking about is to what degree being seen as the mean, ideological pro-lifers would hurt the pro-life movement in the long run, as opposed to benefiting it.
Certainly, one can argue as to whether they made the right call in deciding to settle rather than precipitate a shut down, but it’s certainly arguable that a shut down which was primarily blamed on the pro-life movement would not have actually achieved anything to reduce abortions.
I think this was mostly a case of a lot of fairly new GOP members of the House who are pretty far right trying this out to see if they had the momentum to pull it off, and coming up short. In many ways, the American political system is designed to make it hard to get things done, and if it was easy to defund Planned Parenthood it probably would have been done years ago as a sop to us Social Conservatives.
@DavidN
I don’t think anyone is under the impression that once PP is de-funded, that will solve every pro-life problems. But it is still worth doing.
Should one boycott pharmacies that sell “abortifacient” birth control pills? Should one boycott the products (like Tylenol) of companies (like Johnson & Johnson) that manufacture birth control pills? If one is prescribed a generic drug, should one find out who the manufacturer is and make sure that manufacturer does not also make generic birth control pills?
Yes, one should. But if one falls short of this, that doesn’t mean that one is also compelled to support funds keep flowing to the organization that does more abortions than any other?
People will favor things for different reasons, not all of them necessarily good.
Planned Parenthood has made abortion part of their identity. Perhaps it is a “small part” of their operation, but they apparently consider it an important enough part of their business that they are unwilling to jettison it. I think there should be a price to pay for that.
You think they should pay a price, but should the government make them pay a price? Abortion is a constitutional right. Why should an organization be punished by the government for offering abortion services?
I obviously don’t believe that abortion is or should be a constitutional right, so I’m not going to find that convincing.
But let’s stipulate that I should accept that it is.
Speech is also a constitutional right. Yet it is my strong suspicion that if the CEO of Boeing were to, say, express some sympathy for the Confederacy, not apologize, and the board of Boeing were to not discipline him, it would be a bit more difficult for Boeing to win future government contracts.
In my mind, killing hundreds of thousands of unborn children is a good a reason as that to not fund an organization.
Speech is also a constitutional right. Yet it is my strong suspicion that if the CEO of Boeing were to, say, express some sympathy for the Confederacy, not apologize, and the board of Boeing were to not discipline him, it would be a bit more difficult for Boeing to win future government contracts.
I don’t think it would have any impact. Would you mind explaining to me how you think this would impact on defense procurement or give some examples from past defense contracts? At what point of the bidding process would this come up?
I don’t know how many corporate executives who are Confederate sympathizers there are out there, but if you want to use of more likely situation, speak of racial discrimination.
Yes, one should. But if one falls short of this, that doesn’t mean that one is also compelled to support funds keep flowing to the organization that does more abortions than any other?
It seems to me that if one has a personal pro-life conviction that makes defunding the non-abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood a priority, the things that one can do oneself should be a priority, too. There is an argument (unconvincing, to my mind) that taxpayer dollars going to Planned Parenthood support abortion. However, it seems to me if you really believe birth control pills are abortifacients, there are things you do that much more directly support “pre-pregnancy abortion,” and buying the products of companies who manufacture the pill, or patronizing drugstores that sell it, are considerably more direct than paying tax dollars that go to Planned Parenthood. It is easy to rail against Planned Parenthood and say they should not get government money. It is a little harder to avoid Johnson & Johnson products or to find a drugstore (if you can) that doesn’t sell birth control pills.
Um, no. When I buy Tylenol from CVS, I’m not giving CVS money for the purpose of them spending it on infanticide. If they spend any of my money on infanticide, this is a side effect of my purchase – and the relationship between my purchase and the way that the organization uses my money is so tenuous, it is debatable whether it is even a side effect at all.
On the other hand, when the federal government funds Planned Parenthood, it gives them money for the explicitly stated purpose of PP using that money to pay for certain methods of infanticide (in this case, the pill, but not the surgical method). When I buy something from my drug store, I’m not giving them money and saying “here, use this to subsidize infanticide.”
“pre-pregnancy abortion,” — That’s the first time I saw this. What is it? How can you abort when you Re not pregnant??
Again, perhaps those things should be a priority. I don’t see why that invalidates the movement to not fund Planned Parenthood.
My understanding is that the defunding of PP was attached as a rider to the budget bill. In other words, it was not negotiated away as part of the budget, but it was agreed to detach this and other riders in order to get the budget passed, and the defunding issue will be addressed later.
Thales and John McG,
Kurt would be the expert, but I think the “bill of attainder” argument against the Pence Amendment makes sense because all the amendment did was prohibit funds from going to Planned Parenthood. If the amendment had prohibited funds from going to any organization that performed abortions (kind of like a domestic Mexico City Policy), it would not have been a bill of attainder. But simply to say the funds can’t go to Planned Parenthood (with the unstated reason being that they are the largest abortion provider in the country) while not saying they can’t go to the second-, third-, and fourth-largest abortion providers (and so on) is to single out Planned Parenthood because you don’t like Planned Parenthood. If the “money is fungible” argument makes sense, government funding for Title X programs should not go to any organization that is an abortion provider, since the money is just as fungible in the hands of other organizations as it is in the hands of Planned Parenthood.
The question in my mind now is why the Pence Amendment specified Planned Parenthood rather than prohibiting Title X funds from going to any organization that performed abortions.
Interesting point, David. I’m not an expert on this legal topic, but I now understand how the argument goes, which I didn’t understand before. Thanks. I hadn’t heard the “bill of attainder” argument being made at all during this PP debate by any of the commentators who I read, whether they be on the left or right. But after a little research, I see that the topic came up during the ACORN debate last year. But as I said, I’m not an expert enough on this to know the answer. My first impression is still that it would be odd for Congress not to have the ability to take away discretionary funding — but I see the argument that “singling out” is different from a general grant and that it may be improper to “single out” someone in a law.
Kurt has said several times in this thread that this was evidence of the corruption of the pro-life movement. I’m unsure where’s he’s coming from. Is it corrupt to seek PP defunded? Or is it good to seek PP defunded, but corrupt to do it by a possibly unconstitutional bill of attainder method? Or something else?
Kurt has said several times in this thread that this was evidence of the corruption of the pro-life movement.
What is corrupt is that they have a rigid, unaltering practice of making sure there legislative program is crafted in a way to make their movement a junior partner to fiscal conservatives, even pro-abortion fiscal conservatives while never lifting a finger to protect the unborn if it offends the economic Right or wins support from moderate or progressive Democrats.
I dunno — they (the GOP house) did vote and pass a bill banning PP funding. They did get DC abortion funding stopped. These things look like something to me. I just don’t see the intentional hypocrisy that you see.
Yes, one one issue they crafted their amendment to conform the Republican Party’s fundemental hostility to democratic government and put Democrats who are both pro-life and pro-civil rights in a difficult position. On another amendment they again selectively applied their fungiblity theory that they don’t apply elsewhere. And coming down the pike, they are trying to prohibit a health care benefit from being used for abortion that they designed and created. Rank hypocracy.
they crafted their amendment to conform the Republican Party’s fundemental hostility to democratic government
Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean here.
they are trying to prohibit a health care benefit from being used for abortion that they designed and created.
Nor here.
Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean here.
[Sorry Kurt, you're gonna have to answer with something more substantive. Do it as a favor to me who has no idea about the US system and would like to know more. ;)]
“pre-pregnancy abortion,” — That’s the first time I saw this. What is it? How can you abort when you Re not pregnant??
Maureen,
I invented the term to make a distinction. In generally (but not universally) used medical terminology, pregnancy is defined as beginning with implantation, not with fertilization. So if an embryo is lost through natural means (as 40% to 60% are thought to be) or is prevented from implanting by use of a drug or medical device, it is not considered to be a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or an induced abortion. However, those who are pro-life often prefer to count pregnancy as beginning with conception. This means that if a drug prevents implantation, they consider an abortion to have taken place. From a clinical viewpoint, there is a lot to be said for considering pregnancy to begin with implantation. If conception happens but implantation does not, nobody is ever going to know conception took place. As I said, this is thought to be the case up to 60% of the time. But of course if personhood begins at conception, then pro-lifers are right to consider conception the key moment in pregnancy (in certain respects). I was trying to accommodate both the pro-life belief and the medical view that pregnancy doesn’t begin until implantation.
The question in my mind now is why the Pence Amendment specified Planned Parenthood rather than prohibiting Title X [contracts] from going to any organization that performed abortions.
I would like an answer to that as well.
Cindy writes, “If birth control prevents many abortions, then why is it so bad? If it prevents STD’s, then why is it so bad?”
This is probably not the place to argue why birth control is sinful, but the fact is that the Church teaches that it is intrinsically, i.e. always and everywhere, evil. See the Catechism at 2370.
You are not allowed to do something evil, even if it’s for a good motive.
That alone settles the issue for me. But I would argue that the contraceptive mentality makes sex a much more casual affair. People get the idea that sex has nothing to do with procreating, therefore they have sex even when they have no intention of having children. Thus when a pregnancy arises it is almost always unwanted. This in itself has led to a huge increase in abortions.
So does it really matter that the evil of contraception and the evil of abortion are done by the same organization or that the government encourage the creation of two evil organizations, each to focus on one evil?
I think there would be some value on that, yes.
First, I see Planned Parenthood’s status as the leading abortion provider to be a graver issue than its promotion of contraception. I don’t particularly like its promotion of contraception, but it’s not the type of thing to move me to action, which may or may not be to my credit.
Whenever we get debates on this, there are a series of valentines written to all the wonderful work Planned Parenthood does. Some are even on this thread. That they’re all about cancer screenings and that abortion is only a tiny part of what they do, and that thy really reduce the number of abortions.
I tend to believe that all this goodwill that gets showered on Planned Parenthood has some effect on people’s attitudes toward abortion as well. If Planned Parenthood is such a wonderful organization, and it is also the leading provider of abortions, then can abortion really be that bad?
I have no illusions that this would be a sufficient step to changing people’s attitudes toward abortions, but it would, IMO be a positive step.
You must be kidding when you you call contraception Evil?
Kurt writes, “So does it really matter that the evil of contraception and the evil of abortion are done by the same organization or that the government encourage the creation of two evil organizations, each to focus on one evil?”
Sorry, I’m having trouble grasping what your argument is. I object to the government funding either birth control or abortion, if that’s what you’re asking. But certainly abortion is the greater evil. If we can stop funding for either one, that’s a good thing I think.
Sorry, I’m having trouble grasping what your argument is. I object to the government funding either birth control or abortion, if that’s what you’re asking. But certainly abortion is the greater evil. If we can stop funding for either one, that’s a good thing I think.
So if the government is going to fund the evil of contraception, why is it so important those programs be administered by group who otherwise are not engaged in other evils?
If the government was funding the making of porno films, do you really think requiring them not to hire prostitutes as actresses is a worthwhile effort? Go out and find some good girls instead?
I think there would be some value on that, yes.
I appreciate that, John. I too can understand finding some value in separating Title X family planning contractors from abortion providers. It does ghettoize abortion providers while allowing for the emergence of a strong anti-abortion/pro-contraception player on the national stage.
First, I see Planned Parenthood’s status as the leading abortion provider …
May I correct you. Possible leading provider. Either is close second or maybe an equal is the Chamber of Commerce.
Organizations affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation provide 300,000 abortions a year. 160,000 abortions are direct billed from employer provided health insurance and it is claimed that is is “more common” for employees to be reimbursed for insurance than direct bill providers. If we take “more common” to mean a majority, than more than 320,000 abortions are employer paid and most employers (particularly those offering comprehensive health insurnace) are federated with the U.S. Chameber of Commerce.
Looks like an open question if the Planned Parenthood Federation or the Chamber of Commerce is the largest abortion provider.
Whenever we get debates on this, there are a series of valentines written to all the wonderful work Planned Parenthood does.
true. And the recent debate has been a tremendous win for Planed Parenthood and their private fundraising. Why the RTL ever gave them such a stage is a puzzle. I had to even correct/explain to an apolitical but strongly anti-abortion friend that she had been mislead when she told me that she heard the government might shut down over funding for “women’s health.”
But to use the often-mentioned example of Aquinas and prostitution, even in the Catholic tradition something may be tolerated if suppressing it would lead to greater evils. So if the use of contraceptives prevents unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions, there would be a case for tolerating the use of contraceptives. Basically, I think the Church does tolerate contraceptive use, in that there is no Church-sponsored campaign that I know of to make contraceptive use illegal.
David writes, “But to use the often-mentioned example of Aquinas and prostitution, even in the Catholic tradition something may be tolerated if suppressing it would lead to greater evils.”
But if the use of contraceptives increases casual sex, leading to more unwanted pregnancies and thus more abortions, then I’m not sure tolerating it produces less evil rather than more.
Agellius,
Explain what the Pope did then?
Cindy: Sorry, I don’t know what you’re referring to.
I suspect she is referring to this:
http://vox-nova.com/2010/11/20/did-pope-benedict-just-change-church-teaching-about-condoms/
I was referring to that. I don’t know how you get around ” You are not allowed to do something evil, even if it’s for a good motive.” Yet the Pope sort of did just that no?
I don’t think the Pope said you could do something evil. The fact is that intending to render a fertile act infertile is evil does not mean that anything that could possibly be used for such an end is evil. Catholics don’t need to think that rape is bad, but rape with a condom is worse.
The condom is the evil, allowing it when one knows they are HIV positive.
Huh?
Cindy,
I think the argument here is that condoms, in an of themselves, are just objects, and are morally neutral. It’s a misconception that the Church condemns condoms. They condemn the moral pretext under which a condom would be used. Think of it like an atomic bomb – an atomic bomb is just physics, and is morally neutral as an object. However, there are no circumstances in which *use* of that atomic bomb would be justifiable, so people take the shortcut and call atomic bombs evil. It’s a small difference, but a poignant one.
I don’t think any of us would disagree with the statement: “It is immoral to use an atomic bomb. If you’re not going to listen to the church and drop it anyways, at least try to drop it in an area that isn’t populated”. It doesn’t make the action licit. It’s a pastoral concern intended to limit the damage of the immoral action. Likewise, if you’re not going to listen to the church and have sex, especially when you’re HIV positive, you’re already doing something immoral. So, if you’re hell bent on doing something wrong, at least limit the damage you’re going to do to other people.
Thanks Dan. That is helpful. :)
@Kurt
Well, what I am asking for is consistency. While I would respectfully disagree with you, I would invite you to make your case — disengaged from any particular issue — that Congress should do way with current government contracting practices and simply name in legislation the particular defense contractors, health clinic, IT company, etc. that should carry out various federal contracts.
Oh yes, and write into the Labor/HHS appropriations bill that Ramona Ramirez not receive a Pell Grant — not after what I heard she did at the senior prom —disgusting.
I’m not sure that’s necessary. I think what is established is that there are some standards for what type of organizations receive government support. Above, you seemed to be sympathetic to the Boy Scouts not receiving government support because of their discriminatory policies toward gays.
I am arguing that being the leading abortion provider is a reasonable standard for exclusion, even if abortion is “perfectly legal” and “a constitutional right.”
Perhaps we are in agreement with this, and the issue is the particular language of the GOP rider. If that is the case, I hope we can work together to come up with phrasing that will be more appropriate.
I am arguing that being the leading abortion provider is a reasonable standard for exclusion, even if abortion is “perfectly legal” and “a constitutional right.”
What about the country’s second-leading abortion provider? Would it be okay for them to receive federal funds, whoever they are? If you buy the “money is fungible” argument, all those tax dollars might help the second-leading abortion provider become the first. Then what? Pass a bill saying they can’t get federal fund either?
Why the scare quotes? Abortion is perfectly legal and a constitutional right.
I think what is established is that there are some standards for what type of organizations receive government support.
But the amendment does not establish standards for what type. It names a particular group. And PP does not receive federal government support. It receives an opportunity to bid on federal contracts.
Above, you seemed to be sympathetic to the Boy Scouts not receiving government support because of their discriminatory policies toward gays.
I would oppose banning BSA from bidding on government contracts.
I would be willing to look at particular cases, but especially in these times of tight budgets, I would not favor giving general operations support to groups like BSA that are only willing to serve certain boys and exclude others.
Perhaps we are in agreement with this, and the issue is the particular language of the GOP rider. If that is the case, I hope we can work together to come up with phrasing that will be more appropriate.
I would support applying the Mexico City Policy language to Title X contracts so long as it was not falsely asserted that this was a de-funding of abortion but honestly described as prohibiting giving a government contract for services excluding abortion to groups that also provide abortions using their private funds.
However, while I would support such a provision, I also respect those who simply think all government contracting should be based on an objective evaluation of the bidder best able to carry out the program at the lowest cost.
Lastly, I actually like the idea that the likely result of such a provision is that we could have a well funded anti-abortion/pro-contraception Title X family planning provider that would be a strong presence in the community and in national discussion.
Brett,
Are you stating that if a woman is being raped and after she has been punched in the face a lot of times and basically know’s she isnt going to win the fight, if she begs and pleads,” please use a condom I have one in my purse”, and the man actually does it. You are saying that is worse? Am I following you?
No. I am saying Catholics don’t have to think that.
Have you read my original pieces on this question? I don’t want to go over it all again here, but I think that would give you a good sense of my ideas on this.
I’m sorry Brett. I was so tired last night, and when I read your post, I completely misread your meaning. I read it again this moring, and wanted put my palm to my forehead!..lol.. It’s amazing sometimes how I can manage to distort something that I have read when I am tired and take the meaning completely backwards. Again, sorry.
Kurt writes, “So if the government is going to fund the evil of contraception, why is it so important those programs be administered by group who otherwise are not engaged in other evils? If the government was funding the making of porno films, do you really think requiring them not to hire prostitutes as actresses is a worthwhile effort? Go out and find some good girls instead?”
I don’t think that’s an apt parallel. It’s more like, if the government must fund the making of porno films, at least let’s not have it contract with a mob that also carries out murder for hire.
“Congress allows 17 states to fund abortions but not DC.”
What an injustice!! ; )
I don’t think that’s an apt parallel. It’s more like, if the government must fund the making of porno films, at least let’s not have it contract with a mob that also carries out murder for hire.
No, that would not be apt. Criminal organizations are already barred from federal contracting. If your point is the gravity of ending human life, an apt example would be barring federal contracts from organizations involved in making and distributing the lethal injections used in capital punishment.
We’re apparently talking on different levels. I thought your question to me concerned the moral level, not the legal. My response was a hypothetical: If, hypothetically, the government were to fund pornography — which it does not do since it’s illegal — then it might also hypothetically contract with a criminal organization, which is also, in actuality, illegal.
On the moral level, the scenarios I presented are parallel: We have the government funding one immoral thing, but some people preferring that, if it must fund that thing, it not do so through an organization that also does things that are even more morally heinous.
On the moral level, the scenarios I presented are parallel: We have the government funding one immoral thing, but some people preferring that, if it must fund that thing, it not do so through an organization that also does things that are even more morally heinous.
Why?
I mean why as a moral imperative rather than just an idea with some possible virtue?
Congress is not required to fund Title X — it chooses to. That seems to be the greater evil, because Congress is directly participating in the evil.
But then on the second question – a person, organization or society might be morally responsible for an action they fund or cause to happen. But are they morally responsible for all actions of organizations they contract with? Are they responsible in the same direct way as something they fund or support or is it indirect?
Can you elaborate on the responsibility for actions of organizations one contracts with?
Take for example the Hilton Hotel chain. If I rent a room and pay to watch a wholesome movie, am I wrong to so contract with the hotel if they also offer pornographic movies for which I do not purchase? Am I directly morally responsible? Or would it be virtuous but not an absolute requirement that I contract elsewhere? Even at a much more expensive and lower quality hotel?
I don’t care to get into an exhaustive analysis. I consider it obvious that it’s better not to contract with an organization that murders babies for a living. If you disagree, I can live with that.
And we are still left with dead silence as to why the GOP did not write an amendment that said that. And we are left with the same silence from their defenders here. Why not the language of the MCP?
And why does the Archdiocese of New York give contracts to strident advocates of legalized murder? (I refer to their display ads in the New York Times).
Agelius,
The most recent attempt in the House was not an attempt to keep from contracting with an organization that performs abortion. It was an attempt to keep from contracting with Planned Parenthood only. There was nothing that would have kept funding from going to other abortion providers.
David:
Thanks for clarifying, but I still support it for the reasons previously expressed. And I would support doing the same in the case of any other abortion provider too.