November 2009 Archives

The run-up to debate in the Senate on health care and abortion is already producing some interesting comments.  The Senate bill offered by Senate Majority Leader Reid does not include any pro-life language like that of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment which was approved by the House.  In fact, the Reid bill mandates federally subsidized abortion and actually requires a monthly abortion fee.

 

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) says he will offer a pro-life amendment to the Senate bill with language very similar to the House-passed Stupak-Pitts Amendment.  And, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich), who's led the charge to remove abortion funding from health care, says he has the votes necessary to block passage if the Senate version does not include pro-life language.

 

The full court press is on to discredit the pro-life language in the House-passed bill.  Some in the legal community are questioning the constitutionality of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, and one of our senior attorneys has produced a sound rebuttal to those flawed arguments.

Jay,

You asked me:

"Would you have criticized the Catholic Church if it had OPPOSED the Stupak/Pitts Amendment and it failed to clear the House?"

Here's my answer:  Of course not.  I think everyone should support the Constitution. In this case, the Catholic bishops have stripped more than half of all Americans of their constitutional rights. If the bishops had upheld the rights of all Americans, I'd be applauding their actions.   

Instead, they decided to push their narrow religious viewpoint on the rest of us. That's why I spent yesterday morning on a panel of religious leaders who, like me, opposed the bishops' amendment. This press conference at the National Press Club brought together Catholic, Protestant and Jewish organizations to call on the U.S. Senate not to include the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the Senate version of the bill.

There's nothing wrong with the Catholic Church - or other churches - addressing the issue of abortion.  As you know, this country has a rich and welcomed history of turning to churches and houses of worship during the debate of the great moral issues of the day.  Let's not forget the calls to action - to end slavery - and the powerful voices raised during the civil rights movement. 

 

Consider the call to action from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta in 1965.  These were his words: "Legislation, executive orders, or judicial decrees will have to control the external effects of bad internal attitudes. Therefore, if we are to realize the American dream, we must continue to work through legislation. So it is necessary for Congress to pass meaningful legislation."

 

That's exactly what the Catholic Church did with its strong support of the Stupak/Pitts Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of abortion in health care.  The Catholic Church should be congratulated, not criticized, for standing-up for the life of the unborn.  We heard from nearly 170,000 Americans - including many Catholics to be sure - who wanted a guarantee that the House health bill would prohibit the use of federal funds for abortions.

 

Barry, would you have criticized the Catholic Church if it had OPPOSED the Stupak/Pitts Amendment and it failed to clear the House?

Jay,

 

I'd like to turn our focus away from Planned Parenthood and on to the Catholic Bishops.

 

As I'm sure you know, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops persuaded Congress nearly single-handedly this weekend to add an amendment to the House health care bill that essentially bars insurance companies participating in government sponsored "insurance exchanges" from covering abortions. That's right, they've succeeded in their push to interject their religious doctrine into America's health care legislation.

 

I will be working with many others to try to get this language is stripped from the bill before it makes it to the President's desk. It would be appalling if this fairly modest reform of health care has come at the expense of women's reproductive rights. Last I checked, Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land, which means this bill is cutting off access to a legal health procedure in most of the nation's insurance plans.

I knew you were a staunch supporter of Planned Parenthood, but there's one comment in your response that really has stunned me.  And, that's not easy to do.  I can't believe that you really believe that it is "morally outrageous that one of the most well-respected sources of information on sexuality and pregnancy prevention is given so little government funding..."   Barry, "so little" government funding?  Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of dollars in federal taxpayer money each year - some $350-million last year alone.  You believe they need more taxpayer money?  How much more would you like to give them?  And, the only thing that's "morally outrageous" is the fact that the federal government continues to fund the nation's largest abortion provider with our tax dollars, year after year.

 

Not only are Americans fed up with subsidizing Planned Parenthood at the federal level, there's growing concern at the local level as more communities take action to keep their state and local taxes from going to subsidize Planned Parenthood.

Little did I know when I started writing about Halloween that new "research" by the Christian Broadcasting Network uncovered that witches were contaminating Halloween candy and allowing demons to be ingested by "Trick or Treaters."  But here it is. Now...