Do Catholic Bishops Run the United States Government?

A correction was made to this article at 1:23 pm on Monday, November 9th. An earlier version contained an error in the name of Congressman Brad Ellsworth, (D-IN).

Tonight, with the aid of some 60 Democrats, women's rights were effectively negated by the US Congress as the House passed the Stupak amendment to HR 3962, the Affordable Health Care Act of 2009.

More in-depth analysis of how we got here is forthcoming. But one thing is clear: The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) apparently is running the US government, aided by a cadre of "faith-based advocacy groups," the House Democratic leadership, the White House and members of the Senate.

If you didn't know that before, be clear about it. Know it now.

And this is particularly true when it comes to women's rights. Any time there is an "important" vote that implicates women's rights and onto which a politician has hitched their political star--in this case President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi among them -- you can bet that the Bishops will be wielding huge influence to make sure no "gains" can be made unless women are screwed. You will hear a lot tomorrow and in the days ahead as to how "this important bill" could not be "held hostage" to any one issue, "it's not perfect," and how "compromises needed to be made," in order to "get things done."

Wait for it.

Yet the Stupak Amendment was not considered to be viable until this week when suddenly the Bishops ratcheted up the heat in Congress and through a "mass"-ive campaign in conservative parishes.

For some reason, when the Bishops pay a call, the entire House leadership shudders, and for some reason, the fact that the Bishops endorsed the bill suddenly became an important "stamp" on a bill that is about public health.

On Friday night, for example, according to several news reports, representatives of the USCCB met with House Democratic Leadership to demand that language be included or an amendment to the House health care reform bill be passed effectively banning private insurance companies from covering abortion care. And apparently as a result of these meetings, the House leadership effectively caved to these demands, jettisoned an alternative amendment offered by Congressman Brad Ellsworth, a pro-life Democrat from Indiana, and agreed to allow an "up or down" vote on the Stupak amendment.

The agenda of the USCCB has been carried out for some time by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak for whom the amendment is named, joined by Pennsylvania Republican Joseph Pitts. Stupak had been threatening the health reform effort for a couple of months. His amendment bars coverage of abortion care in private plans that are part of an insurance exchange created by the federal government even where private premiums paid for abortion coverage and funds are kept separate.

In sum, this amendment robs women of the right to private insurance coverage of abortion care even with their own money paying the premiums.

Thank you, Catholic Bishops.

That the USSCB has been wielding great influence in the debate was evident in at least one comment by a leading Democrat, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA).

"I would like the [U.S. Conference of Catholic] Bishops, who as I understand it want a bill, to help us work out a plan where we don't have winners and losers," Waxman said. "Because the losers will make us lose the bill and the winners won't have won anything."

I am sorry, but as someone who otherwise respects Henry Waxman, why is it important for the USCCB to be "working out a plan" that affects the lives and health and basic human rights of millions of women in this country? Has anyone noticed that the Bishops are not exactly down with women's rights? Does anyone remember that this same group supported denying an abortion to a 10-year-old girl in Brazil pregnant with twins by her own father? And there is that small issue of pedophilia.

Again, I have to ask: Why when millions of women need basic sexual and reproductive health care is it important for the USCCB to be "working out" any plan? What does Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi or any other member of Congress owe the Catholic Bishops that they do not owe the majority of women in this country? What does Obama owe the Bishops that he does not owe you and me, for example, most of those of us who gave money and time and our lives to his campaign?

Do we live in a theocracy?

Honestly: I would like an answer. From the White House. From the House Leadership. And you should want one too.

And be assured this is not the first time women have been sold in the cause of the "greater good," whatever that is when the rights of half the population are trampled.

Last year, after literally 18 months of efforts by tens of advocacy groups to craft a reauthorization of the US Global AIDS Act that corrected failed programs by removing abstinence-only until marriage programs and ensuring that HIV positive women could get access to a full range of reproductive health care, the Bishops stepped in in the 11th hour and insisted on changes.

What were they? Banning US global funding from supporting contraceptive services for HIV-positive women in Africa who wanted to avoid another pregnancy in no small part because they likely would not be alive to support another child; reinserting language on abstinence until marriage and requiring reports to Congress wherever at least 50 percent of funds were not spent on abstinence; and ensuring conscience language so sweeping that groups who did not "like" gays or sex workers would not be "forced" to serve them either with prevention or treatment.

And despite the opposition of public health groups and advocacy groups and despite the fact that these changes to the bill put women at even greater risk of HIV especially in Africa, Congressman Howard Berman caved to the Bishops. Why?

Not a single aspect of the demands by the Bishops were based on evidence. In fact, totally to the contrary: the evidence proved that everything they demanded would only increase new infections and suffering from HIV and AIDS. But once again, the ideology of the Catholic Church was written into law.

With your tax dollars.

The Bishops don't act alone. They are aided sometimes by HIV and AIDS groups that want their part of the agenda passed no matter what. They are aided by groups such as Catholics United which is run by men passes itself off as "moderate" and which today issued a statement that said:

Catholics United today urged House lawmakers to vote yes for H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Passage of the bill will ensure that 96% of Americans have access to affordable health insurance and will constitute a major victory for Catholic values of life and human dignity. The vote comes at a time of historic support for health care reform among mainstream Catholics, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This particular set of "Catholic" values neither jibes with the real lives of the majority of Catholics, nor does it respect women in the least.

And I am left to wonder...why?

Who do they represent? Less than a quarter of the entire US population identifies as Catholic. Of those women who identify as Catholic, well over 80 percent use contraception, and Catholic women use abortion services at the same rate as the rest of the population. The majority of Catholics believe that the issue of birth control and abortion is a personal one, best left up to the woman, her partner, her doctor and, if she has one, her own faith.

I want to know...why are the Bishops running the country?

And have you had enough of Democrats that you elect selling you down the river? Are you angry enough?

What are we going to do about it?

 

Comments

[mostly amused]

They don't have security. Care to do something about it?

[MrDavid]

OK, so I will begin here. The headline is an obviously loaded question. But, no they do not. If they did, we would know it.

Second, I found it very ironic that people are howling in fury about the Church's insistence on the inclusion of Stupak. Who asked their opinion anyway? Well, they are enthusiastic supporters of health care reform, but as a religion cannot support abortion. Agree or disagree, Catholicism is a religion, and it has its beliefs. Now, were you to want a religious group to endorse your bill, and their by lend their support, you would have to listen to them.

Also ironic was this story's thumbnails to other stories. Oh? The Catholic Church is 'threatening' not to feed homeless people? Well, those dastardly villains! I suppose those homeless people will have a secular place to go? No? They don't? Why not?

[mareee]

The Stupak amendment would have little effect on most abortions. As the San Francisco Chronicle pointed out today, only 13 percent of all abortions are currently billed to insurance. Of those, a large number are for rape, incest or to save the mother's life, which would still be covered under Stupak (with Federal funds) Of those remaining abortions, a large number would remain under private insurance only. So you are talking about only a tiny fraction of all abortions that would be affected in any way by Stupak. Of those, an abortion rider could be purchased with private money, similar to a maternity rider that is common. So, why is NARAL etc having such an overblown reaction to this? They are threatening to derail the entire health care bill, as well as 41 senators who say they wont pass health care at all because of Stupak. Did these people ever have any real commitment to health care at all? Recent polls show that over 70 percent of the American public does not want abortion paid for with federal funds. How will these senators deal with the political fallout if they derail the entire health care reform for something that the great majority of the American public does not want?

[hollybork]

Let's take this from a different angle. There is protection in the constitution for reproductive rights and also for freedom of contract. Beyond that, the issue is hopelessly split between those who favor right to life and those who are advocates of reproductive freedom. If the proposed federal law infringes on either of the constitutionally protected rights, it is unconstitutional and will be invalidated. If it does not infringe upon them, then I believe the majority of the American people would support a trade off of getting the public option and getting medical insurance for all Americans in exchange for not specifically funding abortions through tax dollars.

[rain33]

if they run united states government, they can't take care of their problems meaning priests sexually assaulting children and getting away with murder! i think that all churches' tax exemption should be taken away from them because if you are going to be involved in the bedroom, they are invading our rights too much therefore strip the tax code for them!

[Scentedflower]

Here goes separation of state & church

[patianneb]

At the very least, the Catholic Church should lose its tax exempt status for this meddling.
But aside about how I feel about this as a woman, I believe even more strongly that we must get this bill passed and then begin the task of fixing it.
If we hold out for a perfect bill (which can never happen under any circumstances) another sixty or a hundred years will pass with the insurance and pharmaceutical companies (for starters) doing anything they please at any price, and we will continue to be held hostage.
As for the Dems who voted against it out of concern for their own pensions, salaries, health benefits, etc? I will work against every last one of them in the future.

[bobm0001]

How can Catholics look at Iran and Afghanistan and condemn governments that force the people to adhere to the beliefs of a single religion and not see the danger of allowing their leaders to dictate public policy in the US?

[PresidentRobertBooth]

***Are we really going down a path that would force someone who is morally opposed to the act of an abortion to pay for someone else to have that procedure?***

Yes

If a religious group arbitrarily declares an opposition to blood transfusions, does that mean that they should be excluded from public healthcare?

Or what about organ transplants?


Where does it end?

[mommadona]

I will never forgive Nancy Pelosi for allowing this to happen.

Never.

[Gigaman]

"Do we live in a theocracy?"

It would still be a theocracy even if you were the one to decide what is morally right, and therefore force the rest of society to operate to your moralities.

This is the problem when the government starts taking resources away from one citizen to give to another citizen. Are we really going down a path that would force someone who is morally opposed to the act of an abortion to pay for someone else to have that procedure? It kind of gives me the willies to even think about it. What someone does with their own life and resources - that is one issue. If you want to fight for individual liberty, I understand that battle.

Having the government force individuals to betray their belief systems via the IRS? Are we really at that stage in our country? Kinda scary, folks.

[Osusuki]

Only to someone who thinks John Galt was a real person, not the product of the fevered mind of a White Russian emigre with delusions of adequacy.

Income Tax has forced Americans to betray their belief systems since Abraham Lincoln signed the first one into effect during the Civil War, forcing hundreds of thousands of Yankee Quakers to help pay for a war they detested. Likewise, income tax paid for Vietnam and both Iraqi oil wars, and is supporting our useless effort in Afghanistan right now.

Like many old soldiers (I write this as a veteran, on Veterans' Day), I detest ALL war. But I pay my taxes gladly even though the bulk of my last IRS bill supported the loss of 4,300 of our own and 655,000 innocent Iraqis for neoconservative lies. And I don't have much sympathy for those who get all bent out of shape about pennies out of their taxes paying for 0.001% of the cost of a few abortions here and there.

Of course, you could care less about abortion. The wording of your post makes it obvious you're just looking for an excuse not to pay income tax and hoping to scare others into supporting you.

[JonInPeoria]

You sir, are my hero.

For your service and for this post.

It would do the Republicans and all other tax-hating people in the country well to remember that one of their own, Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society."