In response to Matthew’s post “Did U.S. Bishops Caveat an Eternal Truth?” which asks how the Bishops could endorse health care when it will pay for some abortions (rape and incest), we received comments, emails, and tweets that take issue with this point of view. The response suggests that this instance is no different than the Hyde amendment, which also contains exceptions for rape and incest. The issues here could not be more different.
The Hyde Amendment’s express purpose was to limit the funding of abortion. The best that could be politically achieved were the prohibitions on federal funding of abortion with exceptions for rape and incest. In no way did the Hyde amendment propose to actually pay for those exceptions.
Today, the situation is different. The Stupak amendment is an amendment to an overall bill that would have paid for all abortions. The amendment limited the types of abortions that would be paid for by the Health Care bill, but in the end the bill would still pay for some abortions. This makes it radically different from the Hyde amendment.
What the Bishop’s did is indicate that with he inclusion of the Stupak amendment, they could support the Health Care bill, a bill which will pay for some abortions. The net effect is that the number of abortions will increase due to the funding. No pro-life politician, no Catholic, and certainly no Bishop should in any way support a bill that will lead to additional abortions through federal funding.
While it is true that without the Stupak amendment, the health care bill would have been much worse and led to many more abortions, no Bishop of the Catholic Church and no one who calls themselves pro-life should support a bill that will lead to more abortions. Period.
For the Bishops to indicate support for a bill that will fund some abortions is unacceptable. Would the Bishops support a stand-alone bill that would pay for abortions in the cases of rape or incest? I think not. For the same reason , they cannot not support the health care bill either. No amount of universal health care make this permissible.
As stated, without the Stupak amendment the health care bill would have been worse, but there is no compromise on the funding of killing. By supporting the Health Care bill, even with Stupak, this is exactly what the Bishops are doing.
The Hyde amendment never funded a single abortion, but sought to limit what it could. The same cannot be said of the the Health Care bill, Stupak or no Stupak.
November 13, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Patrick – Dale had it right. The net/net is that nothing has changed with regard to Federal moneys for abortion. Federal moneys through Medicaid DO pay for abortion in the cases of rape/incest. The Healthcare bill sought to expand that to all abortions; Stupak prevented it and we're back to square 1. I wish you could see the forrest for the trees here.
November 13, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Early, you said …
"The net/net is that nothing has changed with regard to Federal moneys for abortion. Federal moneys through Medicaid DO pay for abortion in the cases of rape/incest."
Wrong. The number of abortions covered under the public option and /or the federally approved subsidized plans will be much greater than are now covered under Medicaid.
Many more abortions paid for by you and me. The healthcare bill expands federally funded abortion. Period.
November 13, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Patrick – can you prove this or is this your own assertion? All evidence is to the contrary.
November 13, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Early,
Really? Will more or less people be covered under Pelosicare (whether the public option or subsidized plan) than are now covered under medicaid? More people. That is after-all the point.
So more people with the same abortion coverage as in Medicaid = more abortions.
November 13, 2009 at 11:15 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 13, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Oops – I posted my comment on the wrong post.
November 13, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Patrick – the people who will be covered will not all be getting abortions. And as I stated, only 1% of abortions are due to rape/incest. 1% is still 1%. The needles hasn't moved.
I think there is another positive outcome here as well. The news broke that the RNC's insurance policy also provided for abortions (since 1991). This coverage is now being dropped, so yet even less still public moneys will be funding abortions. The polls are all saying now that the majority of Americans favor abortion restrictions. I think the one-two punch of Politics + winning hearts and minds on this issue is finally bearing fruit.
November 13, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Another point of irony: the RNC insurance policy which allowed for abortions was as I stated enacted in 1991. This was also the point at which abortions in the US piqued; something like 1,400,000+ according to the CDC. The number has steadily declined ever since, but is still unfortunately over 800,000 a year in the US.
November 14, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Oh, Paladin…I know Thomas better than you think. I just don't have a lot of respect for him as a fallback when my common sense is more readily accessible. Besides…double effect, much?
If it's rude to comment frankly at what I see as some of the practical failings of the pro-life movement, then oh well, chalk me up as being rude then. If I were in a position of leadership, I would be more interested in actually saving lives – any lives – rather than dithering over the fact that I'm not saving all the lives that are in danger.
This argument, to me, is akin to the argument in favor of opposing the partial birth abortion ban while it was moving through the Senate. We were told that, because the bill contained an exemption for "the life of the mother," that it was impossible to vote for this bill. Technically, yes, voting for the bill meant that you were voting to allow some partial birth abortions to occur – at least those that could be "justified" through the exemption. However, to revisit darling Thomas, I would expect that a decent Catholic would understand that the principle of double effect allows us to seek the good, regret the un-sought evil, and move on.
Let me be clear on something here, as well: I am not supporting the bill. I think it is a mess of a thing that has some shining conceptual gems buried in mountains of scat. One of the reasons for my opposition, however, is not that the bill fails to prohibit all abortions. I would never get a bill like that from this Congress, in this country given the political climate and the powers that be. I am also determined that this situation will not leave me an impotent pontificator, though – I want to stay engaged, so that I can be a more effective tool for change down the line. My only point in arguing for the bishops is that, barring any ideological concerns, I can understand why they might issue a general statement of support for healthcare reform…and while you might argue that some of the bishops are liberal and do not care, I hardly think that His Emminence Cardinal George falls into that category, and his statement on the matter here illustrates exactly the kind of stance I think of as productive. As opposed to hand-wringing about abstract concepts of culpability, which is where we're at now.
November 18, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Sorry… illness kept me away from the computer for a while.
Der Wolfanwalt wrote:
Oh, Paladin…I know Thomas better than you think.
That may be so; I can only go on what you write, not what you know… and your dismissive description of St. Thomas' writings as "abstract moral theories" and "a tired horse" (and did you really mean to call his writings "sophistries"? Whatever do you mean?) implies a stunning ignorance, at very least. If your words don't match your knowledge, then I'll be happy to wait while you realign the two, and try again.
I just don't have a lot of respect for him as a fallback when my common sense is more readily accessible.
Ahhh, common sense! Yes, who needs the Angelic Doctor of the Church–whose Summa was laid upon the altar at the Council of Trent along with the Sacred Scriptures and the Decrees of past Holy Fathers–when one's own personal tastes and impulses are so much more readily at hand, and so much more pleasing?
Besides…double effect, much?
I can guess at the meaning of this snarky sentence fragment, if I must, but I'd rather have you explain clearly. What, exactly, do you want to say about the principle of double effect?
If it's rude to comment frankly at what I see as some of the practical failings of the pro-life movement, then oh well, chalk me up as being rude then.
I wasn't being nearly so vague as that. You wrote:
Frankly, I think that some pro-lifers are so hung up […] that they end up frothing at the mouth and looking like crazy folk in public…because they are.
One can comment frankly without calling people names, such as "mouth-frothing crazy folk". That's the part to which I was referring, mainly. It's also your raw opinion, without basis in fact, and nothing more. (Seriously: you think that the genuine "mouth-frothers" are thus because they follow St. Thomas Aquinas? Tell me when you plan to propose that to an audience, so I can watch them laugh you off the stage…)
If I were in a position of leadership, I would be more interested in actually saving lives – any lives – rather than dithering over the fact that I'm not saving all the lives that are in danger.
Then you should be quite content to join the embryonic stem cell research crowd, yes? They promise great hope (so they say) for all sorts of deadly maladies, if only we stop "dithering" about such "inanities" as whether blastocysts have souls, and other such "abstract nonsense". I'm sorry, but your enthusiasm is causing you to outstrip sane reason, here.
I'm really starting to think you're some sort of Deist, at this point, Der Wolfanwalt; otherwise, whatever do you think is the *point* of saving lives and doing good? God has the power to save everyone from every last scrap of physical death, disease and suffering. But even a few minutes' reading of the Scriptures (to say nothing of the fuller teaching of the Church) will show you that physical well-being isn't ultimately the point of anything.
Cont'd:
November 18, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Finally, a break in the schedule to finish part II!
This argument, to me, is akin to the argument in favor of opposing the partial birth abortion ban while it was moving through the Senate. We were told that, because the bill contained an exemption for "the life of the mother," that it was impossible to vote for this bill.
I addressed that, already; if you're limiting something (to the best of your ability) which has (without your consent) already occurred, then there's no sin in that. But if you consent to the introduction to a new evil (which an expansion of abortion funding/tolerance would certainly do–and Patrick addressed that) that has not yet taken place, you are violating the moral law… which is no abstract thing: it's as deadly-hard as nails.
My only point in arguing for the bishops is that, barring any ideological concerns, I can understand why they might issue a general statement of support for healthcare reform.
Had they done that, and no more, I would not be arguing the case at all; it would have been a fine thing for them to do. But the USCCB statement strongly implied an "enthusiastic" gesture of support for the bill IN PROGRESS NOW (else the statement, in context, would have been almost meaningless). That's the problem.
Also: you seem to have missed the fact that the USCCB, as an organization, is run mostly by the laity. See earlier in this thread. As such, USCCB statements (unfortunately) do not always reflect the mind of the bishops. See the "USCCB movie reviews" of "Brokeback Mountain", "The Golden Compass", and the like, for quick and off-the-cuff examples of that.
..and while you might argue that some of the bishops are liberal and do not care,
Some of the bishops care, and are liberal, and are trying to fix things in the wrong way, and using the wrong tools. Others are not. I did not address that at all.
I hardly think that His Eminence Cardinal George falls into that category, and his statement on the matter here illustrates exactly the kind of stance I think of as productive.
Can you give me some evidence that His Eminence actually said this, and not some "spokesman"?
As opposed to hand-wringing about abstract concepts of culpability, which is where we're at now.
You do seem to have an axe to grind with moral theology, for some reason! One of these days, we'll show you that you're seeing it quite wrongly, and dismissing (and disparaging) it quite recklessly and foolishly.
November 23, 2009 at 7:28 pm
All I can say is "wow."
Well, that's not really true, I can say a lot more than "wow," but it might end up being the best thing to say.
Taking things in no particular order, let me start with Aquinas. Don't dislike St. Thomas as such. I think some of his ideas – the hierarchy of law springs eagerly to mind – overcomplicate matters. I think it is a symptom of the Aristotelianism of that age, and if you want to talk about not liking people, then Aristotle is a fellow I really don't care for. That, however, is not nearly as interesting to me as the more specific issue that we're ping-ponging around here.
I'm just going to ignore everything you said about the structure of the USCCB; not because I care whether the bishops approve of a given movie directly, or because that important function has been delegated to the unordained, but because it is an utterly silly distinction to make. There were laity, priests, and other non-episcopal personages involved in Vatican II as well…and it didn't impact the character of that event even a little. Also, I am aware of the difference between Vatican II and the USCCB on the authoritative and doctrinal levels, in case you were tempted to think differently. I bring it up to make the point that the presence of non-bishops in the organization does not mean the organization does not speak for the bishops corporately…if it were not, one might think it pretty advisable to change names to avoid scandal. Or maybe that was the point?
I am going to rely on the above logic as I show you this. I don't know a lot about Cardinal George, but I do assume that he knows how to issue his own statements, in case someone masquarading as a spokesman starts issuing false statements on his behalf. Maybe I'm missing something insidious by taking this arrangement for granted…but to start questioning what my common sense tells me to that extent would be to stray too close to the warped logic of a sedevacantist – and by that I mean the special logic that we bring out when we need to belabor a point that common sense would tell us is spurious…just, for example, like sedevacantism.
Finally just to bring us back to the topic of the post whose thread we are in, if someone thinks his best shot at cementing a restriction of federal funding for abortion into place is by supporting the current healthcare reform push, or if he has no other problem but abortion in this bill, then I can understand why it might be supportable. I happen to find other reasons not to support it, and I continue to oppose it abortion or no. However, what I think is going on here – and none of the fuzzy moral logic I've witnessed thus far has served to move me on this point – is a conflation of conservatism with Catholicism…and that just pissed me off when I encounter it.
Incidentally, lest it was unclear, I am not calling "morality" fuzzy, but rather the logic laid out by you, Paladin – or the Archbolds – in service of a moral end.
November 23, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Also…an axe to grind with moral theology? Only the fuzzy kind.
December 18, 2009 at 7:10 am
The proposed Health care legislation does NOT provide federal funds for abortion, and specifically retains the Hyde Ammendment language. Stupak's ammendment goes far beyond that by attempting to restrict services to anyone who uses any insurance coverage "touched" in any way by Federal dollars… thereby giving rich women who buy other than government touched insurance the right to an abortion…and everyone else … is treated differently.