Why were representatives of Catholic Bishops allowed to sit at the negotiating table while the House of Representatives hashed out a health care reform bill? The United Stated Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had lobbied hard to have an amendment presented by Democrat Bart Stupak included in the final House health care reform bill. Stupak told Speaker Pelosi that if she wanted democratic members of the pro-life caucus to support health care reform, she would need to meet with the Bishops’ representatives.
Nancy Pelosi, who is a pro-choice Catholic, agreed to the meeting, and the result was the Stupak-Pitt amendment being brought to the floor of the House for a vote. The amendment would make it illegal for the public option, or any insurance plan that is purchased with the assistance of a federal subsidy to offer coverage for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life. How is the USCCB able to draw this line? A fetus wouldn’t know it was conceived by rape or incest. Are these fetuses inherently less valuable than a fetus conceived by consensual sex? What about the value of the 45,000 people who die every year because they lack health insurance?
Stupak-Pitt passed by a final vote of 240-194, with 39 Democrats voting for the amendment. In turn, 21 of those 39 Democrats then voted against the healthcare reform bill. So much for the pro-life caucus’s support. Why did Speaker Pelosi, a liberal Representative from San Francisco, allow the bill to be hijacked by this conservative wing of her party?
Churches have long enjoyed tax exempt status in the United States, but with the extensive lobbying done by the USCCB, will this change? If Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California has any say in the matter, it will. Woolsey wrote an op-ed piece here, questioning the legitimacy of USCCB’s tax exempt status.
For more on the health care reform bill, click these links:
House health care bill may end a woman's right to choose
Pelosi and House pass massive health care bill putting government between doctors and patients-video
Comments
Scott: You are apparently ignorant of the IRS regulations on the subject of church involvement in issues (permitted) as opposed to elections (prohibited). Look it up before you make any more publicly mistaken comments.
By the way, Catholics are also citizens of the United States. Catholic Bishops have as much right to speak out about issues as you do. You don't have a privileged place to silence your opponents. The Bishops have First Amendment rights.
You ask: "Why were representatives of Catholic Bishops allowed to sit at the negotiating table while the House of Representatives hashed out a health care reform bill?" Maybe because they, like or not, are experts on both abortion law and health care policy.
The allowance for rape, incest, and life of the mother is the law now. It demonstrates that the Stupak amendment, and what the USCCB wanted, was nothing more than the status quo.
I think you should have read the article a little more carefully David. It was not the author who said their tax exempt status needed to be investigated. He simply presented an op ed written by a congresswoman. Click the link and take a look for yourself. It's a short piece and won't take much time at all to read. Of course the Bishops are entitled to free speech just like the rest of us. If you take a look at the USCCB website, you will find that they have a paid staff of over 350 in their DC office. Perhaps they should register as lobbyists if they are going to aggressively lobby congress with their large staff. And Charles, really, are Catholic Bishops anywhere close to the best "experts" congress can muster on abortion law and health care policy? Please!! If the Catholic church is happy with the status quo of the Hyde amendment, why not continue it. Why must it be restated in the health care reform bill in order to get the "pro-life" caucus vote.
Should the bill also state the murder is still illegal in order to maintain that status quo? Clearly the church want to further restrict a woman's legal right to abortion that has been the law of the land for decades. Hmmm another unstated status quo.
Scott: You are apparently ignorant of the IRS regulations on the subject of church involvement in issues (permitted) as opposed to elections (prohibited). Look it up before you make any more publicly mistaken comments.
By the way, Catholics are also citizens of the United States. Catholic Bishops have as much right to speak out about issues as you do. You don't have a privileged place to silence your opponents. The Bishops have First Amendment rights.
Opposing a public health option IS pro-abortion on a far greater magnitude than supporting a public health option that might fund some abortions.
The shear fiscal impediment of childbirth without insurance leads many if not most with unplanned pregnancies to choose abortion even if they would rather give the child up for adoption or start a family. When my mother gave birth to me, my parents were barely able to afford the $20,000+ bills associated with a normal pregancy (and that was in the 80s, i don't know what it costs now). When faced with these costs, many young married couples who would wish to start a family do not, and many people who would much rather choose to continue their pregnancy choose abortion over poverty.
Anti-public health is anti-family, anti-life, and pro-abortion.
Not only would a public health option make it much easier for many to pay for the medical costs associated with families, it would in fact be providing a indirect financial incentive to choos
What is another name for a pro-choice Catholic? A liar.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!