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 9:58 pm
Wow, even the USCCB Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities failed to critique the rape/incest provision.
http://www.usccb.org/mr/mediatalk/StupakAmendmentFactsheet.pdf
This is seriously upsetting. But par for the course when it comes to USCCB's politics.
November 13, 2009 at 11:17 pm
It is NOT TRUE that the USCCB has endorsed the health care bill. That is a lie perpetuated by shoddy newspaper reporting. See: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17696
November 14, 2009 at 4:10 pm
In Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 73, John Paul II explicitly addresses the situation of pro-lifers in the U.S. The bishops' actions were absolutely in accord with Church-teaching and in the interest of protecting human life.
November 15, 2009 at 7:32 am
They threw people like me (conceived in rape) under the bus. Not only are they saying that my life wasn't worthy of protection, but that the government/our tax dollars/"We the people" should have to have you aborted! What an insult! I have a better quote for you. Psalm 33:11 — "But the plans of the LORD stand firm forever, the purposes of his heart through all generations." God has plans for every unborn child. He stands firm in those plans. And He certainly wouldn't compromise them by agreeing to pay for any of His children to be slaughtered. If only His people would stand firm! I wasn't disposition or expendable.
Thank you to everyone who can recognize that.
— Rebecca Kiessling
November 15, 2009 at 7:34 am
Oops — meant to say, "should have paid to have you aborted." Also, "I wasn't disposable." (I guess it's a bit too late at night for me.)
— Rebecca
November 15, 2009 at 9:56 am
Rebecca,
Everyone on our side is fighting to get you back on the bus. The war isn't over yet and pro-lifers will not stop until this evil practice is totally banned.
But would you rather that no other lives are saved, since some are still being thrown under?
November 15, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Yes, thank you to all who celebrate a bill that explicitly would pay to have me killed, too.
Indeed, when is the last time any politicians stood up for those of us conceived in rape? Why? Because 99.9% of them think it's absolutely fine to kill us! Be honest, 99.9% of so-called pro-life politicians have no intention of banning legal abortion because they think we who are conceived in rape deserve to be killed.
So, no, they are not working for the same goals and from the same principles. Many faux prolifers are working from the same principal as Hitler; some human lives are superior, and some are garbage; and they have no intention of changing that evil thinking.
The Stupak Amendment is bad. How can anyone in their right mind think that explicitly agreeing to pay for the killing of preborn babies is acceptable even if it meant saving a million other babies? The ends do not justify the means. One cannot consent to the killing of innocent people in order to save others. That is basic moral philosophy 101.
If the bishops really believe that all life is sacred then they would not explicitly support evil in order to get a good. In all likelihood, many of the bishops also think that babies conceived in rape or incest can be killed legally – I know of many who think this, and many priests as well. Many bishops don't see all life as sacred, so this would be why to them the Stupak amendment is great! Those who know the state of the Church cannot deny this in good conscience. These same bishops have been supporting abortion through their so-called charities for years and years.
Also, those who love to quote JPII in EV to justify voting to support the murder of babies in order to save others, conveniently leave out the clarification from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on discerning how to vote on a specific law:
"[I]t must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals."
So, if a law contains anything that is contrary to faith and morals a Catholic cannot vote for it. Well, the Stupak amendment contains an explicit agreement to give government money to pay for killing babies conceived in rape, incest, and for the life of the mother, which is certainly contrary to Catholic morals – it is a consent to murder – therefore, a Catholic cannot support it.
Furthermore, from my reading the Hyde amendment originally banned all government funds from abortions with no exceptions, it was a year later that the pro-aborts won funds to abort babies conceived in rape, incest, and for the health/life of the mother.
Please American friends learn about what's going on here. I'm a Canadian and it is kind of strange that someone in another country is more aware than those who live in the US.
November 15, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Rebecca and Deborah,
Thank you so much for taking the time and having the courage to share your stories. We do need to hear how deeply the rape/incest provision affects you, regardless of whether that is comfortable for us or not.
You are both beloved and treasured daughters of God.
Blessings.
November 22, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Anon, is wrong about the HYDE amendment.
The ORIGINAL HYDE amendment DID IN FACT ban all abortions from being covered except for those that were to actually SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER, which is extremely rare! In 1994 during the Clinton administration the language was changed to allow the loop hole of incest and rape. Now that is the status quo. This is NOT ACCEPTABLE!
November 28, 2009 at 2:59 am
Hey JP II Anon…could you shoot me an e-mail at agvernon@gmail.com?
I think I'm where you are and wouldn't mind reading more of your stuff.
Sorry if I'm not up with posting etiquette.
God bless you all.