Why The Catholic Bishops Matter on Health Care Reform

In response to some recent posts about the Catholic Bishops position on abortion and health care, some have chided me for caring too much about what the Bishops think. After all, there's plenty of evidence that Catholics don't follow the Bishops on a wide variety of political or social issues, from abortion to contraception to the Iraq war.

But I believe Bishops matter a great deal politically when it comes to the abortion-and-health care debate.

1) They want health care reform to pass. Most pro-life groups are either opposed to Democratic-style universal health care plans (e.g. Family Research Council) or neutral (Right to Life Committee). The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is the only major pro-life group that wants health care reform. As a result, they have no interest in using the abortion issue to block health care. So when they raise objections about abortion provisions, members of congress may perceive them to be substantively rather than politically motivated.

2) They may influence pro-life Democrats. Pro-life Republicans are unlikely to support health care reform even if the legislation was perfect, from their perspective, on abortion. The more important group is pro-life Democrats, who may be on the fence on health care reform, or lean in favor, but have expressed unwillingness to support it if legislation subsdizes abortion. Even those pro-life Democrats who aren't Catholic can look at the Bishops as kindred spirits, since they too want to both oppose abortion aid and support health care reform. A reminder: about one quarter of Obama's coalition came from pro-life voters.

3) The Bishops give Democrats political cover. The question of abortion and health care is complicated. Some of the issues reside in gray zones, where both pro-life and pro-choice groups can make plausible claims. If the Bishops support the health care package, Democrats and moderate Republicans would have a simple, jargon-free, non-technical response to charges that the plan encourages abortion: "Would the Catholic Bishops really have supported this if it encouraged abortion?"

4) The Catholic vote matters. If Obama hadn't made huge inroads among Catholics, he would not have won the 2008 election. In 2004, George W. Bush beat John Kerry 52%-47% among Catholics. Obama beat McCain among Catholics 53%-45%, a stunning 13 point shift. He even improved among regular churchgoing Catholics. I have no illusions that the Bishops either can cause or prevent such shifts among Catholic voters. But given the importance of that vote, from the Democratic perspective, it's better to have the Bishops on board than to not have them.

My usual disclaimer: I'm not commenting on the substance of abortion policy, just the political realities.

More from Steven Waldman on Beliefnet here.

 

 

Comments

[raker]

Until the bishops publicly repudiate the Republicans' contempt for the poor and urge priests to deny them communion, I don't care what any bishop thinks or says. (This is my first confession in forty years; keep the blessing, father: No matter who they praise or repudiate, I don't give a rat's ass what any bishop thinks or says.)

[CatTheGadfly]

I'm willing to compromise on abortion being included in the health care bill, legal medical procedure or not. My personal CHOICE is not to have an abortion. But that's not why.

Most medical conditions aren't preventable nine ways to Sunday, and there is no "morning after pill" for most medical conditions. I'm willing to concede this one for this reason. Although, I wouldn't consider this sufficient reason to concede it if the issue weren't threatening the passage of a good reform bill.

It can be argued, especially with regard to rape and incest, that abortion should be covered, and I do see the point. I hope that "mother's life in danger" is covered.

(I see the pro-life point. For people who really believe this, for whom it's not just a political talking point, I admire and respect the pro-life point. I just want the pro-life point to stay IN CHURCH, where morality is appropriately legislated.)

That said; No one that I can see on the pro-life side is ensuring the well-being of the children who are being born, and in fact, a lot of the ones protesting outside abortion clinics appear to be the same ones who condemn "all of those unwed mothers having more babies" as being a drain on the system.

[Catothemuchyounger]

I wish I could get every Catholic, indeed, every religious voter, to read the posts on here whenever religion comes up. It would inoculate them against any thought that "progressives" are allies on anything.

The Church is, of course, "conservative" in the sense of having a long established traditional point of view and trying to stick to it as much as possible over time. But the Church is not wedded to capitalism or individualism or just about anything that we think of as "conservative." The Church is a natural ally of any policy it would see as aiding the poor. But the anti-religious feeling of so many on this site is so strong that they cannot stomach even the though of having such an ally. The Church has been concerned about the poor for a couple thousand years. It has been involved in the delivery of health care for most of the history of this country. But for so many of you, it is a dangerous force whose ability to influence public policy should be weakened as much as possible.

I guess you figure that there are so many "progressives" like yourself that you don't need such allies, and you can insult religious believers, with respect to their most heartfelt beliefs, without damaging your cause. I don't think you are right, but as a conservative who is against much of your agenda, I hope you keep it up.

[blue53]

Catholics would do better to be worrying about their bishop’s ever-increasing ties with the evangelical right. Catholics are the best in the world at looking out for their own interests. They would sell their grandmothers if it meant procuring more land to increase the size of the local catholic hospital. Hospitals and insurance companies stand to gain a lot from health care reform. Catholic charities just got 100 million from HHS, and the trade union for catholic hospitals is encouraging catholics to support reform. Believe me--they will work it out. They will support health care reform--because it is good money for them.

[dtrobert]

Here's the problem with your premise: There is no "abortion AND health care debate". There is an abortion debate, and there is a health care debate. But to join the two is utterly dishonest, for quite a few reasons, not the least of which being that there is no language in any health care bill under consideration which affects the status quo on abortion is any way at all.

But more importantly, in the end, is that the abortion debate in the U.S., in the legal sense, is not a matter of health at all; it's a matter of privacy. Roe v. Wade was decided based on the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling, which was a privacy ruling, period. Those opposing abortion have not in the past shown any interest in health care issues relating to abortion, except as "talking points".

So please Mr. Waldman, stop trying to be an apologist for people who only enter the debate to push forward their own petty chauvinism.

[according2mark]

The Catholic Bishops want health reform to pass. Instead of bashing them on their participation in the discussion, you should be encouraging them to further speak out. There are a lot of conservative voters in this country that are against any type of health care reform. The Catholic Bishops can and should be an ally in explaining the moral reasons for ensuring that health care is accessible for all. The Bishops in Kansas City recently put out a pastoral statement (http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-23540-Kansas-City-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m9d13-Catholic-Bishops-step-into-health-care-debate) that clearly outlined their support for reform and explained a basis for evaluating the various proposal.

[PlaceboStudman]

Great, just freaking great, Catholics are going to have a say when it comes to things like abortion and stem cell research, but the disabled aren't going to have a single word spoken for the fact that insurance reform isn't going to do one damned iota of good

[dems08]

I understand why federal dollars are not spent on abortions - because conservative attitudes still rule this country. With few restrictions, in the United States,

ABORTION IS A LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

I hope that some day there will be NO restrictions on federal healthcare dollars being spent on LEGAL abortions.

[dems08]

they are not pro-life

they are anti-choice

words matter

[gotborked]

They are not "anti-choice". They are just anti-choosing to elect to abort unborn babies.
Since you really want it to be an "anti-" name, but still be precise since "words matter," a compromise would be "ant-abortion". Meanwhile, though, everyone in the world still uses pro-life and pro-choice, and everyone knows what they mean.

[roudy]

The Bishops have zero influence and that is as it should be.

[JackNasty]

We need to keep the Catholic church and other churches out of government. We need to reinforce the Constitutional wall separating church and state, not demolish it.

[chrisincalif]

Every church that becomes involved in politics should be paying taxes on their income. Some bishops in the church said that communion will be denied to legislators (ie John Kerry) who do not vote to abolish abortion. Even pushing to pass a health care bill is wrong; churches don't belong in our politics, period.

[mommadona]

And the SHOULDN'T have any sway, other than their personal power to vote, but I do question their loyalty what with their dual citizenship and one of those states supposedly is run as a franchise by 'Gawd, Inc'

FACT: The Vatican was only recognized about 60 years ago as a 'nation/state' political entity.

[DRaymond]

I think that you may have left off number 5 and 6.

5: Unlike the right wing evangelicals Catholics in general like the idea of separation of church and state, They don't want an American Theocracy. The Catholic Church has plenty of experience in being discriminated against in other theocracies. They know that there has been plenty of Catholic-bashing in American History (until Kennedy the notion of a Catholic president was almost as fantasical as a black president before Obama). If the Evangelical Conservatives really achieve their goal of an American Theocracy would that old anticatholic attitude be free to return? Because of this they have no broad agenda for political power to be leveraged off of this. This leads to 6.

6. The Catholic Bishops will be easy to flip. All you need to do is to say that birth control and elective abortions will not be in the base coverage but in a separate optional rider that would be completely private. I know that might seem lame, but I expect that the coverage would cost less than ten bucks a month.

[bobwalters]

History sez the Catholic Church doesn't want an American Theocracy because they know it wouldn't be a Catholic Church Theocracy. They've been perfectly happy to run theocracies around the world, especially in Mexico, South and Central America -- the key to their happiness with it is that they are in charge. For my money, the Bishops, along with the other religious "authorities" should stay out of politics -- if they want in, let 'em pay taxes, just like the rest of us heathens. Otherwise, all the churchists are getting representation without taxation! If Catholics want to listen to the folks who protect pedophiles and sexual predators -- or the Evangelicals, who often ARE sexual predators -- I suppose that's their right. But in political matters the religious organizations have for far too long had waaaaay too much influence without paying their way. Don't know if it's still true, but the Catholic Church used to be the wealthiest corporation in the world.

[Spesabsquemetu]

First of all, intolerance for a viewpoint that suggests Catholic bishops voice could matter, displays the same ignorance crippling the GOP that thrives on a climate of fear and divisions.

Why should anyone's view point be excluded because of their religious beliefs?
And for that matter: WHERE are the rabbis, the ministers, the voices of bishops, priests, women, mothers, and anyone with any sense of ethic for life?

One's position on abortion - no matter what that position is, does not exclude from discussion on health care the fundamental belief that EVERY HUMAN BEING SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE DIGNITY OF COMPASSIONATE HEALTH CARE.

Our collective response as a nation to the plight of those struggling and suffering across America, while congress pads their campaign war chests with MILLIONS from the health industries, while denying Americans simple tenets of compassionate health care is a national disgrace.

The silence of bishops, rabbis, ministers, and those claiming to be "religious" is almost as terrifying as the hatred being spewed from the voices of ignorance at the hate-rallies being conducted around the nation to the exclusion of ANY VOICE of INTEGRITY or HONOR from the entire Republican party calling for end to the savagery and vitriol directed at our president.

[PhilipB]

Well said. Fanned!

[MOregon]

Fanned.

[llisa]

Isn't it about time religion got out of politics?