I knew Saturday was a disaster for the country due to the deficit busting behemoth bureaucracies in the healthcare bill that passed. But it’s possible that a greater disaster occurred that has gone largely unremarked on.
At the time of the vote I, along with many others, was unaware that the Stupak Amendment allowed for funding abortion in cases of rape and incest.
A commenter named Rachel informed me of that in the combox yesterday and I was stunned. I read the amendment and was horrified to see she was right. It seems the U.S. bishops just endorsed an amendment that provided for taxpayer funding of abortion in cases of rape or incest.
Says The Hill:
The USCCB announced its position in a letter to lawmakers, arguing that Stupak’s amendment was consistent with the Hyde Amendment, a long standing policy that prevents federal dollars from going to elective abortions.
“[W]e strongly urge you to vote for the [Stupak proposal] and to support a fair process in the House of Representatives to consider this essential improvement in health care reform legislation,” the letter reads.
Doesn’t this makes it a little more difficult for the bishops to argue that all life is sacred. The bishops have attempted adding a caveat to an eternal truth.
Should we, as Catholics, start saying that all life is sacred except in cases of rape or incest? Jesus didn’t say “Suffer the little children to come unto me…except in cases of rape or incest.” So neither should the bishops.
Pewsitter linked to a piece where Judy Brown of The American Life League called the Stupak Amendment a “terrible defeat” for the pro-life community.
I absolutely agree with her.
Some might argue that the Stupak amendment was a vast improvement to the existing healthcare bill, which it assuredly was, but the bishops should be concerned with right and wrong, not political compromises between the right and the left.
As impressed as I am with Stupak for standing up to his own party and improving the healthcare bill, I’m hugely disappointed in the bishops for signing off on this.
I’m hoping that the bishops endorsed through ignorance rather than political expediency. To think otherwise is just too horrifying. I can’t think that the bishops would’ve endorsed a law to support taxpayer funding of abortion if it were not connected to the healthcare bill. So, in the end, did the bishops decide that a healthcare bill was too important to quibble over a minor number of abortions? Were they caught in the legislative rush?
For days it’s been reported that the bishops bullied the Democratic leadership into accepting the Stupak amendment. But it seems more likely that the bishops themselves were bullied into endorsing something they never should have.
The bishops approving funding abortions in case of rape or incest is awful by itself, never mind that cases of claimed rape will assuredly skyrocket in America if the Stupak amendment even survives the Senate.
Tell me I’m wrong about what I’m saying. I want to be.
Update: Laura Ingraham and Raymond Arroyo discuss the bishop’s endorsement of Stupak and the healthcare bill. Listen at Catholic Fire.
November 13, 2009 at 3:58 am
Very, very good questions.
November 13, 2009 at 4:43 am
I was thinking the same thing. Why did the Bishops think its okay to compromise on rape and incest? Are the lives created any less human?
November 13, 2009 at 5:06 am
"A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects." – Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 73.
Sheesh.
November 13, 2009 at 5:14 am
This comment has been removed by the author.
November 13, 2009 at 5:16 am
At Sunday mass the day after the bill was passed, the priest mentioned the "victory" that had occured the day before with the passing of the bill with the Stupak amendment … I was one of the few not clapping.
How rare is it that people actually verify information before passing it onto others, whether it be the ridiculous chain emails my parents forward to me, or priests, bishops, and blogs like this endorsing an immensely significant legislative measure without actually reading the amendment, it seems. So sad.
November 13, 2009 at 5:27 am
I knew about that aspect, unfortunately, Stupack does not increase funding, to my knowledge. Yes, and it also allows for state funded Euthanasia.
It is "Abortion Neutral" to quote Thomas Peters, because it does not expand funding allegedly.
Apparently your state already can kill those children with taxpayer money.
Dunno. The Bishops' media blog has a lot on their view, I wrote about an article of theirs'.
US Bishops' Conference Media Team calls up Obama, over what they see as his stance on health insurance and abortion
http://southafricancatholic.blogspot.com/2009/11/us-bishops-conference-media-team-calls.html
November 13, 2009 at 5:29 am
If it were South African law, I would know of any expansion, logically though, while Hyde may allow abortion and Euthanasia in those cases, with this healthcare bill, we should see an increase in abortions by taxpayer money, even if they may have occurred before.
November 13, 2009 at 6:46 am
Bless the person who dug out the quote from Evangelicum Vitae.
Give you a monstrance of 18k gold and you would complain it is not 24k.
So the bishops should have come out against Stupak? They should only have supported a zero tolerance amendment (that would not have come close to passing)? Exactly what is it that you would have had them do? How perfect does a law have to be for you not to make it an enemy of the good?
November 13, 2009 at 7:27 am
Yes, the bishops should have come out against the Stupak amendment. Supporting the lesser of two evils still results in supporting evil. I expect the bishops to hold the line between black and white. In the words of Fr. Corapi, the devil's favorite color is grey.
Besides, when they conference the assorted bills, the Stupak amendment will be removed anyway, and the final bill passed via reconciliation.
November 13, 2009 at 8:04 am
The Bill would not have stopped Roe v. Wade anyway. Abortion would still be legal.
I'd rather look at the House Bill as a glass half-full rather than a glass half-empty.
A defeat of late-term abortion does not mean you can't celebrate because early-term abortion is still allowed.
Step-by-step, we'll take whatever small victories we can.
November 13, 2009 at 8:46 am
You are wrong. The church's position is always that abortion is wrong, period. No exceptions. Even if the life of the mother is endangered, an "abortion" can only be a consequence of a medical procedure that would save the mother's life (i.e. going through chemotherapy at the expense of the unborn child).
The "rape and incest" clause is always there in any political move. It was there when fmr President Bush banned late-term abortions (sponsored by Santorum). Roughly 1% of all abortions in the US are done for reasons of rape or incest; 95% are done as a means of birth-control according to the CDC.
The point here is I don't think we in the US will ever find ANY legistlation regarding abortion that does not carry the "rape and incest" rider. I'm not saying this is a good thing. I'm putting things into perspective here. If even your patron saint of politics, the "great Santorum" couldn't exclude from the partial abortion bill, I don't see how you could expect any more from this one. But as I said earlier, I do notice a strong anti-clerical trend on this blog subtly attempting to steer people towards doubting the authority of bishops. Maybe you should go over to WDTPRS (arguably the Cadillac of traditional Catholic blogs) to get your moral barrometer/compass back in kilter. You don't see them bellyaching about this victory. Do you?
November 13, 2009 at 10:05 am
"I knew about that aspect, unfortunately, Stupack does not increase funding, to my knowledge. Yes, and it also allows for state funded Euthanasia."
I meant: "I knew about that aspect, unfortunately. Stupack does not increase funding, to my knowledge. Yes, and it also allows for state funded Euthanasia."
November 13, 2009 at 11:54 am
Genevieve, We here at CMR were against the entire bill so we did not endorse it. If you read back on the day that it occured we were not pleased at all that Stupak had passed. We thought it was a sham back then though we didn't know that it allowed for funding abortions in rare cases.
Anon who quoted John Paul II, those sentiments seemed to be geared towards elected officials. I'm not concerned with how Republicans or Democrats voted on this right now. I'm concerned with the bishops. Their responsibility is much greater. And let us recall that it was their endorsement of Stupak that made the passing of the bill feasible at all.
November 13, 2009 at 1:04 pm
For those who still want to consider the Stupak amendment's passing a victory, how on earth could it be. Not only does it deny the humanity of the unborn who are conceived (through no fault of their own) by rape or incest, but it eased the passage of one of the worst bills in the history of this country. The whole healthcare bill is a huge and expensive mistake. Who's winning, here? And can anyone argue that God would be happy with such a compromise?
November 13, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Anon who quoted John Paul II, those sentiments seemed to be geared towards elected officials.
No, they are an example of moral principles involving cooperation with evil which are part of the Church's teaching on moral theology. It is a different example of the same moral teaching then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger famously gave for Catholic voters.
November 13, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Oh, and they're not "sentiments," they're, you know, teachings.
November 13, 2009 at 3:06 pm
If this is the enormity its detractors claim it is, then why wasn't Henry Hyde excommunicated? That's not an idle question. Since 1977, the Hyde Amendment has, in each and every reauthorized form, permitted the exceptions stated here.
Had it flatly banned abortion, it would have been struck down instantly. Leaving in its place taxpayer-funded elective abortion on demand, as administered by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who never saw an abortion she couldn't support. This would usher in the largest expansion of abortion since Roe.
Until Roe is struck down, this is the best that can be done.
–Dale Price
November 13, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Dale is right. Let's be clear where the borders are on this question, if we could. Judie Brown performs a valuable service most of the time. She and her organization are part of the absolutist "camp" in the pro-life movement. (Absolutist here refers to tactics, not goals. All faithful Catholics, including incrementalists, favor complete abolition of direct abortion. The disagreement is whether pursuing intermediate victories is prudent.) The absolutist camp has some great, articulate voices on its side, including Dr. Charles Rice. It is valuable because it provides a needed critique of the weaknesses of the incrementalist position, specifically that 1) it can give the appearance of sacrificing our core principle protecting life and 2) by fighting only winnable political battles, it acts as basically a rear-guard action covering a retreat. I have sympathy for these points.
The absolutist side also has weaknesses. It lets the perfect become the enemy of the good. Its end result would likely be no political victories, at least for a long time. And with no political victories come even worse assaults on human life. The same arguments against the Stupak Amendment are used by absolutists against the partial-birth abortion ban, the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act and even things like parental notification and waiting periods – things that concretely save human lives.
What must be recognized at the core by faithful Catholics is that this little in-house debate is a debate over prudence – what will be effective – not over moral principle, as JPII's teaching makes crystal clear. Thoughtful absolutists, such as Dr. Rice, are as clear on that point as incrementalists are.
– The Anon who Posted JPII
November 13, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Thanks for the articulate explanation, Anon (JPII). Helpful for my understanding.
November 13, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Sara – can anyone argue that God would be 100%happy with any government? Let's be rational here. Two separate concepts.