A Pro-Life Victory?
Try this for a thought experiment: place yourself back in the heady months of the 2008 presidential campaign, a time when Catholics bitterly argued with one another about whether it was morally licit to vote for what some called “the most pro-abortion presidential candidate in history.”
Imagine that I had told you at the time that this (future) president and a strong Democratic majority in both houses of Congress would pass comprehensive health care reform legislation with the following features:
–Coverage for abortion would be specifically excluded from the standard package of benefits that all insurers would be required by law to offer.
–That existing restrictions on the use of federal funds appropriated via the HHS appropriations bill (a.k.a the Hyde Amendment) would be maintained.
–That the federal government, acting in its capacity as both a civilian and military employer, would continue to exclude abortion coverage from the policies it offers to its employees.
–That the new health exchanges would be required to offer at least one policy that did not cover abortion, something not available in the individual policy market in many places.
–That states would have the option of preventing insurers in their state from offering plans through the exchange that cover abortion.
–That federal premium subsidies could not be used to purchase insurance coverage for abortion.
–That while individuals purchasing coverage through the exchange would have the option to use their own funds to purchase abortion coverage, they would have to make a separate premium payment to do so.
–That all of these elements would not only be contained in the legislation, but would be reaffirmed by the President of the United States in a high profile executive order issued hours before the legislation’s passage.
I suspect that if I had laid this out as a likely scenario under a Democratic administration and Democratic Congress, I would have been laughed out of the room and seen as carrying water for the “Party of Death.”
By any reasonable standard, the pro-life movement ran the table this year. The pro-choice movement was soundly defeated on issue after issue. These folks had actually hoped at one point that health care reform would be a vehicle to expand health insurance coverage for abortion by including it in the standard package of benefits that all insurers would be required to offer.
Instead, the pro-choice movement is facing the likelihood of further erosion of insurance coverage for abortion, particularly in the individual market. First of all, I deem it likely that a number of states in the South, Midwest, and Inter-Mountain West will exercise their option to prevent insurers in their exchanges from offering abortion coverage.
Secondly, even in those states that do not exercise that option—and thus require at least one plan to provide abortion coverage—individuals will have the choice of forgoing that coverage. I suspect that people who see themselves at low-risk of needing abortion coverage will opt out. That kind of risk selection may raise the cost of the rider, discouraging buyers who may be on the fence about whether to opt in.
As an aside, I think this will play out differently in states with different social and political cultures. In states my like home state of California, where support for abortion rights runs strong, I expect some insurers to differentiate themselves by how easy and seamless they make it for women to obtain supplemental abortion coverage. They might even be willing to use it as a loss leader. (see comment below) I think this is much less likely in states like Missouri or Alabama.
On a more fundamental level, the pro-choice movement has suffered a significant philosophical defeat. Since its inception, the movement has argued that “abortion is health care,” i.e. that abortion is part of the spectrum of reproductive health care services and should not be treated any differently from other medical procedures.
The health care reform bill approved yesterday–which will shape the nation’s health care marketplace for decades to come–does not embrace this position. Abortion is treated differently from all other health care services. It is not considered part of the basic package and there are moderate obstacles placed in the path of obtaining coverage. To the extent that a key aim of the pro-choice movement has been to “normalize” the practice of abortion, yesterday’s bill must be considered a significant setback.
None of this would have happened without the leadership and tenacity of pro-life Democrats like Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). Pro-life Democrats have exercised more influence within the party over the past two years than they have in the previous twenty.
There is a risk, though, that the pro-life movement’s anger at the outcome of health care reform could lead it to actively oppose Democratic members who have historically been staunch allies. Punishing people who vote with you only 90 percent of the time is generally not the way to build a successful social movement.
In the end the question is simple: can the pro-life movement take “yes” for an answer?
Peter, I agree with your analysis.
As for the pro-life “movement” – it is a coalition, sometimes a loose one, of many movements. Catholic bishops and Evangelical ministers do not regularly coordinate either their political advocacy nor their underlying theological principles.
Whether by design or simply via the circumstances, the Obama administration has a way of making these seams in the pro-life edifice more visible. His appearance at Notre Dame is another instance.
I’m still reeling that Democrats like Stupak and Nelson were able to negotiate whatever anti-abortion provisions the law contains, while Republicans in the Senate, by the ruse of picking up that crucial 41st seat, rendered themselves incapable of even allowing the bill to come back there for a discussion.
I disagree.
First, you are not talking about a pro-life victory. You are talking about an anti-abortion victory. I think the goal of having relatively abortion-neutral health care reform has been achieved. It was neither a pro-choice nor an anti-abortion victory. It maintained the status quo. Abortion has not been “normalized” since the Hyde Amendment was passed. Also, the majority of politicians who call themselves pro-life (Republicans) did their best to keep this bill from passing. Nancy Pelosi, who is herself pro-choice, must be given tremendous credit for the bill. It is not as though Pelos or Obamai, who are both strongly pro-choice politicians, were defeated. This bill passed only because a largely pro-choice party — with no help at all from the Republicans — worked out a way to make it pass.
Now, if you want to broaden the definition of “pro-life” to mean something along the lines of a consistent ethic of life, then indeed this is a pro-life victory. The reason to celebrate is that if all works out as planned, 30 million more people will get health care, and those of us fortunate enough to have coverage now will be able to rest a little easier that if we lose our jobs or get very sick, we can still have insurance.
Tremendous credit must be given to President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, both strongly pro-choice politicians who were committed to getting us a health care bill, and to every Democrat, pro-life or pro-choice, who voted yes.
“I expect some insurers to differentiate themselves by how easy and seamless they make it for women to obtain supplemental abortion coverage. They might even be willing to use it as a loss leader.”
My understanding is that any abortion coverage offered by insurers must be fully paid for in the separate accounts set up for premiums. The premiums must be actuarially fair, in other words, and therefore cannot be manipulated in plans so as to create “loss leader” products.
Can I add another scenerio; Parents because they now can add their twentysomthing daughter to their health insurance are told by her that she is pregnant; She says to them ‘ Dad & Mom, since I’m covered for birthing your going to have a grandchild ‘…. no more pressure for the $300 abortion .. as grand parents we lived that scenerio 21 years ago and last night our granddaughter told us she would fly back from college for Easter vacation. USCCB please copy.
I disagree.
Gaining ground on an issue is only good enough in cases of prudential judgments. In bright-line issues of moral exigency and human destruction, like abortion, gaining ground is the same as losing ground. Lives were lost today. They’ll be lost tomorrow. We’re living in a state of emergency, or as St. Teresa of Avila said, “The world is on fire.” Or, to paraphrase FDR, when your neighbor’s house is on fire you don’t need a hose that gets the water only 90% of the way to the hydrant.
On the other hand, if anything could cheer me up about this, it would be Ed’s great story. Thank you for sharing, Ed.
That this bill may ensure that abortions are not paid for at taxpayer expense is a plus. But preventing government-funded abortions is not the fundamental purpose of this bill.
The fundamental purpose of the bill is to provide insurance coverage to those who are now priced out of the health insurance system, either through expanded Medicaid or government assistance.
There is NO assurance written into the bill that premiums will become more affordable. In fact analysts say that premiums will likely rise. Why wouldn’t they? The bill hands insurance companies ample excuse for raising rates (we can’t cut people off when they’re sick, we can’t cap care, we can’t deny kids with preexistings, yadda yadda).
Moreover, tonight’s news analysis of who will qualify for government assistance with premiums in four years looks pretty disheartening for those uninsured in the middle class. Medicaid will be expanded to families that make something under $27,000 (fine as far as that goes). But the bill could require that the rest of the uninsured first spend anywhere from 2 to 9.5 percent of their income on health premiums before the gov will help out. Exactly where the cap will be on those who will get any help at all is unclear.
Insert my Cassandra-like predictions of gloom and doom from my previous comments here. I’ll bug out and leave you to your self-congratulations.
In terms of the heated rhetoric of 2008, at the very least this is a victory for Doug Kmiec and his sympathizers in that Obama is in no way pro-choice, infanticide-promoting radical. Indeed, the pro-choice folks ought to be asking themselves this morning whether Obama is truly the pro-choice president they believed they had. The truth of the matter is this: Obama is a moderate, or a center-left moderate. He never was and never has been the lefty radical some believed. – TL
I’m afraid I have to agree with Jean. Given the toxic level of distrust out there, the president will have to continue stumping to sell the plan to the American people all over again. I wish the Democrats had a deeper bench.
Here’s an interesting take on who won and who lost.
Patrick:
Good catch and you are absolutely correct. I was careless in my speculation. The law requires that the cost of the supplemental premium be linked to the actuarial cost. Plans trying to use abortion coverage as a loss leader would be open to the charge that federal premium subsidies were, in fact, subsidizing abortion.
Again, thanks for the catch. I’ve amended the post by using strikethrough in the original text.
Peter
In bright-line issues of moral exigency and human destruction, like abortion, gaining ground is the same as losing ground. Lives were lost today. They’ll be lost tomorrow.
Really? And how many lives have been lost in the past 40 years as the pro-life movement pursued their all-or-nothing political strategy? The answer is not that “lives were lost,” the answer is that “many less lives will be lost.” this approach is an excellent example of why so many pro-life people are sick of the “pro-life” movement.
Time wrote:
“this is a victory for Doug Kmiec”.
Thanks, that is exactly whom I was thinking about. He suffered unnecessarily the slings and arrows of the worse of the pro-life radicals in the run up to the election.
I hope he is smiling now.
Sorry Tim for the spelling typo.
“In bright-line issues of moral exigency and human destruction, like abortion, gaining ground is the same as losing ground. . .
Huh??? C’mon, Kathy.
“…his is a victory for Doug Kmiec and his sympathizers in that Obama is in no way pro-choice, infanticide-promoting radical.”
Actually, what Ambassador Kimec said was that the President’s “‘abortion reduction’ agenda will have more impact on abortion in the short run than the traditional battles against Roe v. Wade”. I would therefore think the victory is, while certain to come shortly, a but premature as I reckon we will hear from him and his sympathizers quite soon when they release the data showing the material reductions in the abortion rate they guaranteed us.
Eric and Ann,
I realize this is hard to understand. Here’s the thing. I have an intense sympathy for each little kid that gets killed. That’s what my position on this issue is all about. Little kids. For them, this incremental change is crap.
A million kids a year are targeted and killed, by Americans, in America, with federal approbation.
For each of those kids, incremental change is crap. Until it changes for them, I have to take their place on this as well as I can, without whitewash. Think of what happens to little kids. That’s the issue.
Kathy –
There are others here (all of us, I imagine) who are well aware that this issue is about babies. And what I’m concerned about is that such out and out contradictions as yours give our cause a bad name. It makes our defense of the unborn appear so totally irrational at times that others conclude we ought not to be taken seriously.
Further, I dare say that if I were one of the little kids saved by incremental change I’d be most grateful for it.
One little kid? Out of a million? That would be okay with you?
If someone wants to save little kids, they’ll stop this rhetorical game of dichotomizing. They’ll stop talking about “reducing the number of abortions”–which is whitewash for not outlawing abortions–and make an honest Stupakian (Stupakish? Stupakerian?) stand. They will say no, you cannot build your great society at the expense of unborn babies.
You don’t have to choose between the common good and the protection of innocent life. The Wenn diagram of those two values is not what you’re suggesting.
Kathy,
What Ann said is that she would be grateful for the legislation if she were one of the kids saved. That is a lot different from what your “one little kid?” implies. Essentially, she has matched you rhetoric, and raised you by a personal involvement. I think she has the hand won, but I look forward to your response.
“Think of what happens to little kids. That’s the issue.”
Kathy, I think you have misframed the issue. The issue is not the killing or one’s emotional reaction — including a sense of moral outrage — to the killing of unborn children.
Abortions continue legally/constitutionally with or without Hyde.
I invite you to reframe the issue and, in doing so, to keep in mind that you and we live in a pluralistic society.
What do you ultimately want? And how to attain it?
Some folks, I suggest, get stuck in the “oughts” but get nowhere toward their goal(s) if they fail to deal realistically with the “is”.
Is your goal reasonable in a pluralistic society? Is it realistic in terms of political decision-making? Is it attainable?
In the meantime, the killing continues with or without a sense of moral outrage.
I agree with Joseph, but I would take it a bit farther.
Treating this as a partisan position, in the sense of “if you are not with us you are against us”, goes against the basic natural law argument that life is a universal value. People need to see that that universal value fits in with their own personal values. I doubt that they will respond to calls for them to abandon their values as quickly as they will to a call to incorporate this universal value in with their own.
That will not work in all cases, but it may work more often than the ‘become us or become irrelevant’ stance that has prevailed among pro-life groups.
Kathy,
If I understand your position correctly, it is like saying of the death penalty that no one should try to get individual states to outlaw the death penalty or establish moratoria, and lawyers should stop all death penalty appeals until the death penalty has been totally abolished by national legislation. In such a case, all those who try to reduce the number of executions are merely “dichotomizing,” whatever that means. And those who die because we must make an all-or-nothing moral stance between now and the time of such putative legislation, perhaps decades from now, are of no account in the larger scale of things.
Do I understand your position correctly? If so, do you see how this can be perceived by others as irrational?
“One little kid? Out of a million? That would be okay with you?”
Kathy –
My point was for that one little kid it would be a matter of life and death. No, it is most certainly not OK with me that the others die. But whether or not it is OK with me and whether or not you have extremely strong feelings about them is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. The ;issue is not our feelings, the issue is their lives and how to change the laws. When irrational arguments like yours above are put forth they only makes change more unlikely.
Being pro-choice, I’ve seen the other point of view at some sites today – worries that poor women are being discrimnated against. Still, I’m glad the bill passed.
Thank you, Crystal, for clearly stating your position. Your honesty is refreshing around here.
What Stupak showed, I think, is that it’s possible to hold out stubbornly (irrationally?) about THIS ISSUE ONLY.
Voters can force the issue as well. In districts that flatly refuse to elect pro-choice representatives, even the DNC has to back a pro-life candidate.
If electoral stubbornness is how Stupak and his eight votes got into office and became a political force, then stubbornness is not irrational; it is a virtue. Stubbornness on this issue is not only righteous, it is politically expedient. Stupak did not give in for other considerations. He gave in because they gave in, on THIS ISSUE ONLY.
I realize this is hard to understand. Here’s the thing. I have an intense sympathy for each little kid that gets killed. That’s what my position on this issue is all about. Little kids.
Kathy,
I think a great many pro-life advocates feel exactly the same way. The trouble is, other people (including other pro-life advocates) don’t feel that way, and it is impossible to convince them to feel that way. And it’s not because they (we) are hard hearted. It is because the physical suffering of an aborted first-trimester fetus is unknown and unknowable, and in fact it is unlikely that there even is any suffering. As to the loss of opportunity to have a life on earth, it is impossible to gauge that loss, if indeed it is a loss at all.
The answer to one of the earliest questions in the Baltimore Catechism — “Why did God make me?” — is, “God made me to know, love, and serve him in this world, and to be happy with him forever in heaven.” Catholics now believe that all those who die before birth bypass what one old prayer calls “this vale of tears” and go directly to eternal happiness. If this is true, I don’t understand why we should feel sorry for them.
This is not to justify abortion. If life (personhood) begins at conception, then abortion is indeed the unjust taking of an innocent human life and is morally equivalent to murder. That is not difficult to understand. I don’t know how many times over the years I have heard people say — when a loved one was suffering a prolonged, painful death — that it would be a blessing if they died, or it was a blessing when they died. But according to Catholic thinking, it is a blessing no human being has the right to confer or even hasten. The point is that biological life — having vital signs — is not the highest good. From my point of view, if abortion is wrong, it is not because of the alleged suffering of the unborn who are aborted. It is because human beings don’t have the right to decide that other human beings should die.
“Your honesty is refreshing around here.”
Whoa! What’s with the digs? Who’s being dishonest? Or is bad Catholic Jean again giving herself a pass to jump to conclusions about good Catholic Kathy?
“… no, you cannot build your great society at the expense of unborn babies.”
Where do I begin? To compare this bill with Great Society programs is a joke (it’s an incredibly weak bill that says everybody has not only a right but a legal obligation to pay for health insurance that could rise at a rate beyond your ability to pay, and if you don’t, you’ll get fined; this is not what Give-em-Hell Harry had in mind).
Certainly there was a danger that the bill might have paid for abortions with federal monies–abortions that many women will find a way to pay for anyway thanks to relatively cheap and widely available abortion pills.
Moreover, Kathy is hardly the only one standing up for Congressman Bart. In fact, I would say discussions about the dubious merits of this bill have become lost in praise for Bart, righteous as his actions were. (I provided a link to Bart’s e-mail page in a post below. You’ll get an auto reply that says he can’t respond to those in ZIP codes outside of his area, but I’m sure the comments will be registered.)
And, yes, I realize the Great Society was Johnson’s creation, and it has come to be synonymous with Great Big Bloated Bureacracies That Don’t Work. Truman, who had a fine record on saving money by chasing down government waste a la the Truman Commission pre WWII, would have been the man to create a sane program for health care.
Jean, it’s difficult to compare things from one generation to the next. Medicare is, by and large, a successful program. Medicaid much less so, and I think this is the weakest part of the bill that just past — that it perpetuates and expands such a weak program.
The most important part of the bill is that it embodies, however imperfectly, the principle that as a society we deem it unacceptable that people should be without the means to pay for health care. It did so in a way that, again imperfectly and not evenly or fairly, requires people to be “adults” about the fact that paying for their own health care is somewhat unavoidably their own responsibility — a point that might be easier to take if so many people weren’t already receiving substantial subsidies and will continue to do so (well-heeled and well-paid employees).
Equalizing the relative burden should be one of the top priorities for future reforms, along with de-escalating costs.
As to abortion: Peter’s take away is much too ambitious. My take away is that, as I have said over and over again, pro-life positions will gain much more traction if they are dissolved in honey rather than vinegar. Health care reform has been at the top of the liberal wish list for a long time. It was worth losing some pro-choice face to get it. The same deal would never have been struck for financial reform, education reform, etc.
And so it seems we are off and running with health care reform. I think it was a rough start, but it is a start all the same.
Reasonable people can discuss how as a people, we care for ourselves and for each other. As a society, part of our Christian duty is to care for the poor and to work to secure the common good. There are many Bible passages regarding this and likewise, the Torah and the Koran similarly obligate Jews and Muslims to care for the poor and tend matters of community. Obama could have and should have engaged men of the cloth of various faiths. Because this in fact is a matter that merits thoughtful consideration and involves notions of social responsibility, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim clergymen would have gladly presented this to the public from their pulpits; most would have appreciated the opportunity to engage their congregations in a thoughtful discussion regarding this. Using this past year in that manner would have resulted in a national consensus that regardless of whether they have money or not, that everyone gets to see a doctor when they are sick. That would have made this whole effort more straightforward and civil.
That having been said, at least we are off and running.
Positive – I am glad President Obama signed an executive order directing the government to not use tax money for abortions. I wish pro-life Democrats could have gotten a more permanent fix on that. This is something that both pro-life Republicans and pro-Life Democrats can firm up as we move forward.
The other important item to be ironed out is insuring all those who are sick. Obviously the bill as-is makes some progress on that front, but until it includes some basic, rudimentary care for all residents i.e., the indocumentados (mostly Mexicans, but some others as well), it will not be complete.
Again, in order to bring this in-line with USCCB recommendations, we need to:
1 – Get a more permanent fix on taxpayers not-funding abortions and;
2 – Change the plan in order to cover all US residents i.e., including the indocumentados who work hard in the agriculture and service areas of our economy.
Structure – For now the Democrats seem to prefer some sort of insurance exchange and more or less leaving the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals as-is. That might work for awhile, but the single-payer folks and other might have different ideas such as:
British style single-payer: All medical folks are government employees and the federal government purchases all the nation’s public and most private hospitals. This one is pricey and involves in a heavy bureaucracy, but it is an option.
German style – Where the doctors stay in private practice and the government splits the medical bills with the worker’s employer. If the person does not have a job (retired or simply unemployed), the taxpayers foot the entire doctor bill. Compared to England’s system, this seems lighter and not so much a “state-ist” a solution.
Regulated monopoly – This is a more or less American model, one we have used for over 80 years to regulate public utilities. It guarantees a company a 10 percent annual profit, and all the customers in a given area, but mandates the basic service level and that all be served equally, and at the same rates or prices. Insurance companies could-would live with this model, and it does serve the public good.
Expand Medicare – Reduce the age requirement for Medicare from 65 to zero, and adjust Medicare payments and fees accordingly.
I am sure there are other models; this is really the beginning of a national conversation, not the end.
“I am sure there are other models; this is really the beginning of a national conversation, not the end.”
It is doomed to be a vituperous and clanging conversation. The reaction of the national conservative journals yesterday was basically, ‘win back Congress and the White House so we can fix or repeal this disaster of a bill’. Someone – may have been Kristol – described “Repeal!” as the one-word Contract for America, 2010 edition.
Thanks, Ken, for your informative post. And also thanks for showing that a conservative can be rational about the just-passed health care legislation. The country needs you.
Yes, Jean, you are once again giving yourself an unusual amount of leeway to be rude when it comes to me. Thanks for asking.
It’s interesting that the closest thing to a legislative debate on the substance of the bill seems to have occurred solely within the ranks of the Democratic party.
if one could look at the atempts of the Roundtable of Social Justice Coordinators of the now (IMO) semi defunct National Pastoral life Center, the tension between right to life and social justice groups on strategies and priorities has been around for some time.
How much more so in a pluralistic society.
Before anyone talks about “rudeness,” I think the disgusting attempts at intimidation last weekeend and evcen the interruption of mr. Stupak really qualify on that line.
I also blame leadership in Congress for letting this awful incivility ( a kind word for it) happen and they are aided and abetted, often enough, in cyberspace by posters, many of whom hide in some kind of anonimity.
I think J.Peter did everyone a service with thoughtful presentations here.
My own view is that we needed to move forward on health care even with a bill that is far from perfect
I think that down the road, when whatever adjustments shake out, how much this will really help with deficit reduction will be a vital matter (to discus rationally and not just ideologically – I reject simplistic too big government arguments)
A major issue that will soon rise to the fore is the lack of primary care physicians -which will influence lots of life consideration.
But for those who maintain that abortion is the issue, and the only one, they continue to bring a myopic view to the American scene which, I submit repeatedly, is counterproductive to a worthy goal!
Hundreds of millions of dollors for services for at risk women and teens who are pregnant or who may become pregnant. Extensive adoption services. Health care for women and children. These factors, more than the prohibition against using federal funds for abortion are the real prolife parts of the new Healthcare Law.
Go look at the abortion statistics: which countries have the lowest rates of abortion; the countries with universal healthcare and support services for at risk women and teens, and where abortion is safe and legal: which countries have the highest rates? countries where abortion is neither legal nor safe, and which have no social safety net for women with unintended pregnancies.
Go to the WHO (world health organization) website and see for yourself.
Kathy,
Gradualism is the only pro-life strategy that will work. I take it from your comment to Chrystal that you don’t believe people here when they say they are pro-life, so here’s a little write up of Hadley Arkes, with a brief mention of his gradualist approach. Surely, you don’t think he is secretly pro-choice.
http://www.ashbrook.org/events/constitution/arkes.html
“…[T]his is really the beginning of a national conversation, not the end.”
Ken, I fully agree. In future years, we will see federal healthcare laws tweaked, massaged, changed, and modified so that taxpayers/patients “get the most bang for the buck.”
A friend noted the other day that the Republicans had control of the White House and Capitol Hill for eight years and did nothing to address healthcare inequities. Now we have legislation that has let the proverbial genie out of the bottle. No way to put it back inside. Now the Republicans will have to put up or shut up: They will have to address Americans’ concerns about lack of affordable healthcare or let Democrats control the debate.
I see future political battles more in the vein of healthcare problem-solving than in terms of “US versus THEM”.
Much more work, experience, and learning ahead. The trip has only begun.
Kathy, when I first got involved with the pro-life movement back around 1975, I was so upset with what I learned about abortion that I truly felt righteous anger toward those who supported Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton.
My passion to overturn these two SC decisions and outlaw abortion was such that I alienated family and friends alike — even if they shared my horror at “baby killing”. I was consumed with my sense of righteous anger (I can’t think of a better phrase).
Time and experience allow for perspective. I no longer think that most pro-choicers actually want abortion anymore than I do, but I also have come to realize that we must look for common ground. For me, the Hyde Amendment represents it.
The upshot? We can deal in good faith with people who hold different convictions but who profess to wanting the same end, the reduction/elimination of abortion. Or, we can “stew in our own juices” and get nowhere.
Good luck.
“A friend noted the other day that the Republicans had control of the White House and Capitol Hill for eight years and did nothing to address healthcare inequities.”
I’m sorry to be a grinch about this, but you should remind your friend:
* This might be quibbling, but Republicans had control of the White House for eight years, but not Capitol Hill. They lost control of Congress after the 2006 mid-terms.
* President Bush gets credit for a government health care entitlement that, in terms of the number of people on which it has had an impact, arguably is comparable to health care reform: Medicare Part D, aka the prescription drug entitltement for seniors. (i.e. the entitlement we couldn’t afford, piled on top of the previous entitlements we already couldn’t afford, before we added on this latest entitlement that we also can’t afford. But hey – if you’ve already maxed out two credit cards, what’s two more?). In 2008, Medicare Part D had over 25 million people enrolled.
Joseph and Ken, I hope you are right that the law will be tweaked and improved. I think it’s more likely to be repealed and replaced with nothing.
On another thread I noted a Harvard study that chalked up some 43,000 deaths per year that can be tied directly to the lack of access to health care.
One of the many reasons I feel I cannot call myself a good Catholic is because of the intense focus of folks here on future abortions that MIGHT have been procured and not on ACTUAL deaths of “little kids” and others that are occurring right now. One hundred seventeen today, to be exact.
Not saying that Stupak didn’t do a fine thing standing up for his beliefs and the unborn. Just feeling that the bill is being viewed as much better than it actually is b/c of the EO deal Bart was able to work out.
To denigrate efforts to reduce the number of abortions because that is not the same as outlawing abortion is inane.
Abortion is the law of the land and, barring a major change in the minds of the American public, the judiciary and the legislators of this country, it is NOT going to be outlawed.
Incremental change is preferable to waiting for change that is not going to happen.
The reason Med D is an “entitlement we (allegedly) cannot afford” is not the benefit itself, but the shameful gift to big pharma of a non-negotiable license for them to rape and pillage the beneficiaries of the drug benefit and the tax-paying public. We can thank those Republicans who are so in tune for Catholic social justice principles (as averred on a different post on this blogsite) for this lovely little gift from the many to the undeserving few.
We cannot afford the 2 wars in which we are currently engaged, either in terms of human power, economicis, our international reputation, or our internal morale. But that’s OK — they are for “national security.” We believe the lies we want to believe rather than the realities that we don’t want to address.
I’m racking my brains, trying to remember if I’ve ever used the terms “good Catholic” / “bad Catholic.” Nope, those aren’t my categories. I am getting awfully tired of having them ascribed to me.
My terms are honest/ dishonest. Honesty includes the statement “I am pro-choice.”
What nauseates me is, “Let’s just ignore the moral problem of having abortion sanctioned by code of law. I’m obviously pro-morality in law and politics because of my views on civil liberties, torture and poverty, but in this one instance, let’s ignore any need for righteousness and move ahead with progressivist economic policies.”
“But for those who maintain that abortion is the issue, and the only one, they continue to bring a myopic view to the American scene which, I submit repeatedly, is counterproductive to a worthy goal!”
Bob–
I suppose that is an arguable point, but it’s inarguable that it is infinitely more counterproductive to vote for a pro-choice or pro-abortion presidential candidate. I think that’s why the pro-life movement has grown weary of such protestations from Democratic voters.
Kathy,
May I say again it is easy to be pro life. The only effort is words and shouts while trafficking is going on which you hardly mention. And the uninsured. The unemployed. Etc.
Let me hear your other issues.
It’s interesting to note who else besides Catholics here at Commonweal are happy about the bill’s overall effect on abortion in America. Hey, they even salute Speaker Pelosi specifically:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/statement-cecile-richards-president-ppfa-house-passing-historic-health-care-reform-bill-32230.htm
I apologize if it’s already been posted.
Bill,
Trafficking is illegal.
“it’s inarguable that it is infinitely more counterproductive to vote for a pro-choice or pro-abortion presidential candidate.”
This certainly is not inarguable. “Only Nixon could go to China” was often said many years ago. A president who had spent his career fighting communism, was almost a McCarthyite in the ’50s, could agree to meet with the head of a communist country. The outcry against anyone else would have been too great to allow such a trip to happen.
Something similar may be true on abortion. Perhaps only a pro-choice politician can limit abortion. That is how politics works.
“Perhaps only a pro-choice politician can limit abortion. That is how politics works.”
Jim M., I think you’re on to something. It was interesting to watch my mother react to Stupak’s moves in Congress. She is pro-choice, and a politician’s stance support for abortion is often an important factor in her vote.
Moreover, she equates pro-lifers with doctor-killing, hysterical religious crazies. Predictably, she was pretty mad at Stupak–”Why doesn’t he just go join the Republican Party??”
I asked her if she felt that the anti-abortion language in the bill should be an impediment to its passing, and she said “absolutely not.” I also asked her if she’d rather vote for Stupak or Arlen Specter, who is a pro-choice Republican. She picked Stupak, somewhat to my surprise.
Mom is almost 80, and I’m not going to turn her into any kind of anti-abortion activist. But I would suspect there are a lot of pro-choice Democrats who, if pressed, will not make abortion a litmus test.
If Stupak is able to stay viable within the party (and he should be; Michigan’s U.P. is pretty heavily Catholic), this should be a good thing for other pro-life Democrats.
“Perhaps only a pro-choice politician can limit abortion. That is how politics works.”
Jim—
Interesting thought. Perhaps. The Holy Spirit certainly does work in mysterious ways. Yet that “perhaps” is too thin a reed for a pro-lifer to hang their it’s-ok-for-me-to-vote-for-a-stridently-pro-choice-candidate hat on.
It’s been reported on NCR that pro-life groups are savaging Stupak by cancelling his talks and awards for being pro-life.. communion banning next agenda? this is like watching ecclesial house wrecking. and it’s all about an EO ..Do the bishops think an EO is part of the infallible teaching.. If no bishops step up and puts a stop on this wrecking what’s next ?
Obama didn’t sign the EO today, and it is said only that he will sign it “soon.”
Dear John Borst: Thanks for the compliment. I hope Douglas Kmiec feels some vindication. – TL
Dear MAT: Since abortion rates are often linked to prosperity in and we’re in the midst of a severe downturn, I suspect that any “improvement” will just mean a less fast rate of increase. – TL
I recall a story about how Ted Kennedy once was presented with a plan for a national health care program by Richard Nixon. Nixon had some purely political reasons for offering to advance such a plan; I forget exactly what they were. But he needed Kennedy for something, and this was the trade-off he offered because he knew of Kennedy’s passion for the issue.
Kennedy turned Nixon down because he said he felt the package was less than perfect. He often said later that this was a huge mistake on his part; he should have taken Nixon’s offer and run with it as a foundation. He never got over his regret for this decision.
The lesson we can learn from this episode is that often political realities mean that you take incremental change even from people who offer it for the worst of motives, because that’s how things are sometimes achieved. So if, for example, a governor proposes a moratorium on the death penalty because he fears too many innocent people are being sentenced, you take that and run with it. You don’t turn him down because he didn’t act out of the purest motives of respect for life. As I have often heard in regard to attendance at Mass: sometimes people come for all the wrong reasons and stay for all the right reasons.
And this is the problem so many of us have with the establishment of the “pro-life” organizations. They often seem more interested in fixating on the fanciful idea that someday somehow Roe v. Wade could be overturned by the Supreme Court than they are in reducing the number of abortions today. In a rational society, when you have a president who sends out the message that he would like to discuss how to reduce the number of abortions, the bishops would have appointed a special liaison to the White House to follow up on this. But ours is not a rational society. Instead the bishops and the “pro-life” establishment prefer to ignore his invitation and sit on the sidelines cursing the president.
Eric,
I propose a different thought experiment. What if mugging became legal.
It’s ok, legally ok, to hit little old ladies over the head and steal their purses. A couple out for dinner can be held up at gunpoint with impunity. Policemen will walk by a mugging. It’s a mugger’s right to choose.
Among legislators, some oppose this new state of affairs because they want to get elected as law-and-order conservatives. Others support the new law because it helps them get elected by the out of control muggers’ lobby, whose funding comes from the profits made by muggings.
Meanwhile who is thinking about the little old ladies?
Some people say that the way they care about little old ladies is making the world a better place, so that muggers won’t need to mug. Some people say that we won’t ever be able to make mugging illegal again, and that we have to compromise and take little victories one at a time, meanwhile annually losing legal ground to the pro-mugging lobby.
And the little old ladies get their heads knocked in, one by one, by the hundreds of thousands, all over the sidewalks. For them, it’s not theoretical, unfortunately.
“And this is the problem so many of us have with the establishment of the “pro-life” organizations. They often seem more interested in fixating on the fanciful idea that someday somehow Roe v. Wade could be overturned by the Supreme Court than they are in reducing the number of abortions today.”
Eric Stolz, I take your point, but just as I dislike generalities about “the media,” I think we have to avoid generalities about the “pro-life movement.” The “movement” is a fairly discrete and varied collection of groups with different tactics and agendas.
I provide assistance to a pro-life pregnancy clinic occasionally, a clinic that is completely separate from any political initiatives (though most of the volunteers support Right to Life of Michigan, a political pro-life org). The focus is on getting girls into prenatal care, finding them medical services, hooking them up with adoption agencies or social services agencies if they decide to keep the babies.
I find some of the political organizations within the movement doctrinaire and counter-productive, and I avoid them. Witness this staement on RTL Michigan’s Web site:
“Right to Life of Michigan President Barbara Listing said, ‘We are deeply disappointed and dismayed that Rep. Bart Stupak (D) approved of a compromise in the form of an executive order. With the compromise, some prolife U.S. House Democrats supported the health care bill.’
…
“The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.
“The question of Rep. Bart Stupak’s endorsement is one for the Right to Life of Michigan Political Action Committee. As stated above, this vote was scored as a pro-abortion vote and will certainly be a defining factor in present and future endorsements.”
Slavery sadly persisted for about the first hundred years of this republic (1776-1865), and as sadly, it will prbably take a long time to outlaw abortion. While not the same, both slavery and abortion are matters of the value of human life and the dignity of Man.
A quick review of history will show that while the Abolitionists were very focused and adamant about outlawing slavery, Lincoln and other originally felt it best to limit slavery to the southern states; to not allow new states to have slavery. Two positions, both were anti-slavery; two approaches. Ultimately both positions helped outlaw slavery; both were important and needed.
We pro-lifers must understand what we are up against. We must keep praying and working on this via various means and various coalitions (e.g., with pro-life Protestants and even with Muslims). We must be persistent, innovative, patient, merciful, and we must have faith in God.
I repeat the perpective of one issue folks is counterproductive, dredging up impossible analogys (say mugging were legal).
Sounds like debate 1091.
We need to focus on the actualities of our situation and, on who to vote for, be governed by the broad principles of faithful citizenship.
Yet that “perhaps” is too thin a reed for a pro-lifer to hang their it’s-ok-for-me-to-vote-for-a-stridently-pro-choice-candidate hat on.
Perhaps. I am not suggesting anyone relied on the hope that Nixon might negotiate with Communists. Just that voting for the staunch anti-Communist was not “infinitely.. counterproductive” to the cause of better relations with Communist China.
And so it is here. A centrist politician who tries to achieve consensus might accomplish more than an entrenched activist. Take Kathy’s anti-mugging example. Who will bring the muggers to the table to limit mugging, if not one of their own seeking something else that he thinks is more important? It is possible that a super-majority might agree mugging is not good, but it is also possible that a super-majority might agree we need paved streets, and the only way to achieve that is to limit mugging.
Bob, there was a time when the present state of affairs would have been the “impossible analogy.” What is, now, was once unthinkably cruel. Most of us only have to think it, now. A million a year have to endure it, without anaesthetic, because any consideration for the feelings of the unborn might accidentally draw back the curtain from our eyes.
I hope the time comes again when this unthinkable activity will again be unthinkable.
Stupak showed that one-issue fighting can be productive. So let’s get to it.
It’s clear from Stupak’s comments just before the vote that he’s not just one issue -which also explains why so many one issuers are mad at him.
And why real political and value judgements moved things forward.
Dichotomous thinking: pro-life/anti-life, good/bad, with us/against us, honest/dishonest, black/white, etc.
When I look back on my own experience 30+ years ago, I think I derived some kind of pleasure knowing that I was right and everybody else was wrong. I wore the white hat.
Words escape me right now, but I see the outlines of some kind of dysfunctional psychology at work in such thinking.
O, well…..
Joseph–
So, are you saying that people who see things in terms of wrong/right are wrong, but that people who sees things as you do are right?
Joseph,
I don’t aspire to the high ground and I doubt that that was all that prompted your youthful idealism. I’m wrong, or semi-wrong, on most stuff. I’m not exemplary. But this is important.
Meg: It’s not your fault the state’s three-quarters bad.
Moore: No.
Meg: If you elect to suffer for it, you elect to be a hero.
Moore: That’s very neat. But look now. If we lived in a state where virtue was profitable, common sense would make us saintly. But since we see that avarice, anger, pride and stupidity commonly profit far beyond charity, modesty, justice and thought, perhaps we must stand fast a little even at the risk of being heroes.
How do you describe dichotomous thinking of Borderline Personality Disorder?
Answer:
Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) tend to perceive and evaluate every thought or situation as
black or white
good or bad
all or nothing
This dysfunctional extreme thinking can be one source of extreme actions like leaving a partnership, quitting a job or other impulsive actions. This can be the main source of extreme reactions, mood swings and interpersonal problems.
To change this dichotomous thinking a psychotherapist will point out examples of daily life to the patient and try to discuss different point of views in terms of a continuum. So the client learns a more realistic perception of his environment and personal relationships.
Lol
Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought perhaps this was what Joe was perhaps suggesting.
Perhaps you care to comment and clear the air, Joe?
And now the point. Some things ARE ALL OR NOTHING, because of what is at stake. Middle ground on this issue is NO GROUND for those directly impacted.
I would say that since in fact there is such a thing as objective truth, that there are some things which are always wrong, anywhere, anytime; in all situations. Likewise, there are some things that are always right, anywhere, anytime; in all situations.
Now abortion of course is always wrong, anywhere or anytime.
How to try to change the laws of our land to reflect the objective truth that abortion is always wrong is more complicated.
There are different ways in which pro-life people can help us build a culture of life. Some people are more the hands-on types, some are more march in the street types, some are medical folks, some are more prayerful folks, some are better at donating and-or raising money.
All are important, and all are helpful.
Agreed, however.
I do not want to see this country settle for “good enough” on this issue. We need to stay hungry, stay “on fire”, keep at it until the victory is won. The price is too high not to.
Bill,
It is easy to be pro-life? Since when?
Only problem I see with staying “on fire” is that people get burned unnecessarily.
For example, the “on fire” folks at Right to Life Michigan are burning Bart Stupak’s fanny as a sell-out, recording his vote as “pro-abortion” instead of congratulating him for pushing back on this issue and for helping to frame the “pro-life” stance in terms of respect for all life, born and unborn.
As “Amiga” implies above, it’s not easy to be pro-life. Sometimes especially around other pro-lifers.
I do not condone violence, quite the contrary!!! I do not deny the existence of extremism on both sides, which is most unfortunate, and at the top of my prayer list.
“Dear MAT: Since abortion rates are often linked to prosperity in and we’re in the midst of a severe downturn, I suspect that any “improvement” will just mean a less fast rate of increase. – TL”
It is unfortunate then that Ambdassor Kimec did not alert us that his guarantees were mistaken prior to the election. At least we now know to appropriately discount his guarantees in the future.