Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why does every religion on the planet [View all]beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)79. Catholic Church and the politics of abortion:
Catholic Church and the politics of abortion
Before the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that opened the door to the legalization of abortion, the right-to-life movement in the U.S. consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic.[citation needed] The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Prior to Roe v. Wade decision, abortion was not a high priority for Catholic bishops in the United States.[3][4] Neither was abortion a prominent issue in American politics prior to Roe v. Wade. It was not a major platform plank for either party in the 1968 and 1972 elections.[5]
In the 60s and early 70s, there was a shift as a number of Catholics and Southern whites abandoned their traditional affiliation with the Democratic party and began to support the Republican party. This shift is evidenced by the fact that Nixon received only 33% of the Catholic vote in the 1968 election compared to 52% in 1972. As a group, Catholics represented a quarter of the nation's electorate and were now one of the nation's largest swing groups. Both parties began to aggressively woo both the Catholic voters. Although the Catholic hierarchy could not dictate who Catholics voted for, they did have a substantial influence over the faithful in their dioceses. Politicians were aware that the bishops could employ significant time, energy and money to support the issues that were important to them. From their perspective, the bishops were eager to regain some of the influence that their predecessors had wielded in the earlier part of the 20th century.[5]
After Roe v. Wade, the involvement of the Catholic hierarchy in American politics increased to an unprecedented level, with bishops devoting more time, energy and money to the issue of abortion than any other single issue. The substantial role of the Catholic Church in the abortion debate has received much attention in the American media .[6]
Mobilization of a wide-scale pro-life movement among Catholics began quickly after the Roe v. Wade decision with the creation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The NRLC also organized non-Catholics, eventually becoming the largest pro-life organization in the United States. Connie Paige has been quoted as having said that, "[t]he Roman Catholic Church created the right-to-life movement. Without the church, the movement would not exist as such today."[7]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_the_politics_of_abortion
Before the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that opened the door to the legalization of abortion, the right-to-life movement in the U.S. consisted of lawyers, politicians, and doctors, almost all of whom were Catholic.[citation needed] The only coordinated opposition to abortion during the early 1970s came from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Family Life Bureau, also a Catholic organization. Prior to Roe v. Wade decision, abortion was not a high priority for Catholic bishops in the United States.[3][4] Neither was abortion a prominent issue in American politics prior to Roe v. Wade. It was not a major platform plank for either party in the 1968 and 1972 elections.[5]
In the 60s and early 70s, there was a shift as a number of Catholics and Southern whites abandoned their traditional affiliation with the Democratic party and began to support the Republican party. This shift is evidenced by the fact that Nixon received only 33% of the Catholic vote in the 1968 election compared to 52% in 1972. As a group, Catholics represented a quarter of the nation's electorate and were now one of the nation's largest swing groups. Both parties began to aggressively woo both the Catholic voters. Although the Catholic hierarchy could not dictate who Catholics voted for, they did have a substantial influence over the faithful in their dioceses. Politicians were aware that the bishops could employ significant time, energy and money to support the issues that were important to them. From their perspective, the bishops were eager to regain some of the influence that their predecessors had wielded in the earlier part of the 20th century.[5]
After Roe v. Wade, the involvement of the Catholic hierarchy in American politics increased to an unprecedented level, with bishops devoting more time, energy and money to the issue of abortion than any other single issue. The substantial role of the Catholic Church in the abortion debate has received much attention in the American media .[6]
Mobilization of a wide-scale pro-life movement among Catholics began quickly after the Roe v. Wade decision with the creation of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). The NRLC also organized non-Catholics, eventually becoming the largest pro-life organization in the United States. Connie Paige has been quoted as having said that, "[t]he Roman Catholic Church created the right-to-life movement. Without the church, the movement would not exist as such today."[7]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_the_politics_of_abortion
How the Catholic Church masterminded the Supreme Courts Hobby Lobby debacle
But while the Green family who filed the Hobby Lobby suit objecting to the mandate are evangelical Christians, the road to Hobby Lobby wasnt paved by the Christian Right. It was the Catholic Church, more specifically the U.S. Catholic bishops conference, that largely engineered Hobby Lobby to block the legitimization of contraception as a standard health insurance benefita last ditch effort to prevent by law what it couldnt prevent from the pulpit: women from using birth control.
The Catholic bishops interest in conscience clauses that would allow employers to opt out of reproductive health care services began in earnest in the late 1990s, with the increased viability at the state and national levels of contraceptive equity measures designed to ensure that health plans covered prescription contraceptives like the Pill just like other prescription medications. For years, insurers had omitted contraceptives from prescription drug plansthe only entire class of drugs routinely and explicitly excludedwhich made womens out-of-pocket medical expenses some 70 percent higher than mens. Measures to ensure contraceptive equity had been stalled by male legislators and social conservatives who asserted that employers and insurers shouldnt be forced to pay for what they called a lifestyle choice, not a health care need. Despite that fact that nearly all women use contraceptives at some point in their lives98 percent, according to government surveysand that at any given moment two-thirds of women of child-bearing age are using a contraceptive method, the implication was that fertility management was frivolous or immoral and that other people shouldnt be forced to pay for it.
***
When charges that contraceptives were abortifacients failed to halt the measure, the bishops turned to a new tack: claiming that contraception equity laws violated the religious freedom of insurers and employers who disapproved of contraception and would be forced to subsidize its use. They force private health insurance plans and/or employers . . . to cover all FDA-approved methods of contraception. . . regardless of the providers conscientious objection or long-standing religious beliefs against such coverage, wrote Cathy Deeds of the NCCB. It was a stunning claim, suggesting that anyone who administered or paid for an insurance policy should be free to dictate what coverage was provided to policyholders based on their objection to services that they themselves would not be forced to use.
The Catholic bishops now sought a broad-based conscience clause that would allow any employer or insurer to refuse to cover contraceptives for any religious or moral objection. This represented a major escalation in the grounds for claiming conscience protections. Traditionally so-called conscience clauses, like the 1973 Church Amendment, protected individuals or health care entities like hospitals only from being compelled to directly perform abortions or sterilizations in violation of their moral or religious beliefs. In 1997, the federal government expanded conscience protections to the payers of abortion-related services when it allowed Medicaid and Medicare managed-care plans to refuse to pay providers for abortion counseling or referral services. Now the bishops were attempting to extend conscience protection to any payer who had a moral objection to contraception. Such a measure would make contraceptive coverage mandates useless, because any employer or insurer could opt out. And it would once again leave womens reproductive health care at the mercy of individual employers and insurers and stigmatize contraceptives, like abortion, as a segregated health service that could be carved out of the continuum of womens health needs.
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/14/how_the_catholic_church_masterminded_the_supreme_courts_hobby_lobby_debacle/
But while the Green family who filed the Hobby Lobby suit objecting to the mandate are evangelical Christians, the road to Hobby Lobby wasnt paved by the Christian Right. It was the Catholic Church, more specifically the U.S. Catholic bishops conference, that largely engineered Hobby Lobby to block the legitimization of contraception as a standard health insurance benefita last ditch effort to prevent by law what it couldnt prevent from the pulpit: women from using birth control.
The Catholic bishops interest in conscience clauses that would allow employers to opt out of reproductive health care services began in earnest in the late 1990s, with the increased viability at the state and national levels of contraceptive equity measures designed to ensure that health plans covered prescription contraceptives like the Pill just like other prescription medications. For years, insurers had omitted contraceptives from prescription drug plansthe only entire class of drugs routinely and explicitly excludedwhich made womens out-of-pocket medical expenses some 70 percent higher than mens. Measures to ensure contraceptive equity had been stalled by male legislators and social conservatives who asserted that employers and insurers shouldnt be forced to pay for what they called a lifestyle choice, not a health care need. Despite that fact that nearly all women use contraceptives at some point in their lives98 percent, according to government surveysand that at any given moment two-thirds of women of child-bearing age are using a contraceptive method, the implication was that fertility management was frivolous or immoral and that other people shouldnt be forced to pay for it.
***
When charges that contraceptives were abortifacients failed to halt the measure, the bishops turned to a new tack: claiming that contraception equity laws violated the religious freedom of insurers and employers who disapproved of contraception and would be forced to subsidize its use. They force private health insurance plans and/or employers . . . to cover all FDA-approved methods of contraception. . . regardless of the providers conscientious objection or long-standing religious beliefs against such coverage, wrote Cathy Deeds of the NCCB. It was a stunning claim, suggesting that anyone who administered or paid for an insurance policy should be free to dictate what coverage was provided to policyholders based on their objection to services that they themselves would not be forced to use.
The Catholic bishops now sought a broad-based conscience clause that would allow any employer or insurer to refuse to cover contraceptives for any religious or moral objection. This represented a major escalation in the grounds for claiming conscience protections. Traditionally so-called conscience clauses, like the 1973 Church Amendment, protected individuals or health care entities like hospitals only from being compelled to directly perform abortions or sterilizations in violation of their moral or religious beliefs. In 1997, the federal government expanded conscience protections to the payers of abortion-related services when it allowed Medicaid and Medicare managed-care plans to refuse to pay providers for abortion counseling or referral services. Now the bishops were attempting to extend conscience protection to any payer who had a moral objection to contraception. Such a measure would make contraceptive coverage mandates useless, because any employer or insurer could opt out. And it would once again leave womens reproductive health care at the mercy of individual employers and insurers and stigmatize contraceptives, like abortion, as a segregated health service that could be carved out of the continuum of womens health needs.
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/14/how_the_catholic_church_masterminded_the_supreme_courts_hobby_lobby_debacle/
United States pro-life movement
Demonstrators at the 2004 March for Life
The United States pro-life movement (also known as the United States anti-abortion movement or the United States right-to-life movement) is a social and political movement in the United States opposing on scientific, moral, or religious grounds elective abortion and usually supporting its legal prohibition or restriction. Advocates generally argue that human life begins at conception and that the human fetus (or embryo or zygote) is a person and therefore has a right to life. The pro-life movement includes a variety of organizations, with no single centralized decision-making body.[1] There are diverse arguments and rationales for the pro-life stance. Some anti-abortion activists concede arguments for permissible abortions in exceptional circumstances such as incest, rape, severe fetal defects or when the woman's health is at risk.
Before the Supreme Court 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, anti-abortion views predominated and found expression in state laws which prohibited or restricted abortions in a variety of ways. (See Abortion in the United States.) The anti-abortion movement became politically active and dedicated to the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision, which struck down most state laws restricting abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy.[2][3] In the United States, the movement is associated with several Christian religious groups, especially the Catholic Church, and is frequently, but not exclusively, allied with the Republican Party.[4][5] The movement is also supported by non-mainstream pro-life feminists.[6] The movement seeks to reverse Roe v. Wade and to promote legislative changes or constitutional amendments, such as the Human Life Amendment, that prohibit or at least broadly restrict abortion.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-life_movement
Demonstrators at the 2004 March for Life
The United States pro-life movement (also known as the United States anti-abortion movement or the United States right-to-life movement) is a social and political movement in the United States opposing on scientific, moral, or religious grounds elective abortion and usually supporting its legal prohibition or restriction. Advocates generally argue that human life begins at conception and that the human fetus (or embryo or zygote) is a person and therefore has a right to life. The pro-life movement includes a variety of organizations, with no single centralized decision-making body.[1] There are diverse arguments and rationales for the pro-life stance. Some anti-abortion activists concede arguments for permissible abortions in exceptional circumstances such as incest, rape, severe fetal defects or when the woman's health is at risk.
Before the Supreme Court 1973 decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, anti-abortion views predominated and found expression in state laws which prohibited or restricted abortions in a variety of ways. (See Abortion in the United States.) The anti-abortion movement became politically active and dedicated to the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision, which struck down most state laws restricting abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy.[2][3] In the United States, the movement is associated with several Christian religious groups, especially the Catholic Church, and is frequently, but not exclusively, allied with the Republican Party.[4][5] The movement is also supported by non-mainstream pro-life feminists.[6] The movement seeks to reverse Roe v. Wade and to promote legislative changes or constitutional amendments, such as the Human Life Amendment, that prohibit or at least broadly restrict abortion.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-life_movement
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
165 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Well they said she was a virgin but since there was no artificial insemination back then
malaise
Jan 2016
#18
Not a single one of my friends stayed in the Church after they were old enough to leave.
beam me up scottie
Jan 2016
#30
Thank you, kind fan. The Christians have no good answer for me on that.
Manifestor_of_Light
Jan 2016
#69
Some break free, more than a few DUers were raised as fundamentalist Christians.
beam me up scottie
Jan 2016
#68
Nope, it's not but they've made it their modern day crusade and they have the numbers to wage it.
beam me up scottie
Jan 2016
#115
Yes, many do but the only one powerful enough here to affect laws is Christianity.
beam me up scottie
Jan 2016
#119
"The RCC was behind every law restricting access to birth control, women's health clinics and
rug
Jan 2016
#82
Every recent law, splitting hairs about how involved the RCC is in restricting my rights?
beam me up scottie
Jan 2016
#85
Knowing the facts is not splitting hairs. And the issue is far greater than "your" rights.
rug
Jan 2016
#93
Anyone who feels he needs to defend the Church from its victims is no ally.
beam me up scottie
Jan 2016
#94
Has someone ordained you to declaim who is or who is not an ally of whatever you think you're doing?
rug
Jan 2016
#99
Oops, missed one: Catholic dominance over hospitals endangers women
beam me up scottie
Jan 2016
#100
The Church frames it as a religious war, rug and they wage it every day.
beam me up scottie
Jan 2016
#104
There it is! The word "religious", thanks for admitting that religion is the source.
beam me up scottie
Jan 2016
#106
Another uppity woman speaks: Beatriz Case Reveals Catholic Hierarchy’s War on Women
beam me up scottie
Jan 2016
#111
Your disregard of Pelosi suggests yorur real target here is not women's rights at all.
rug
Jan 2016
#112
My focus is the Church's war on women and guess who's leading the charge?:
beam me up scottie
Jan 2016
#114
You asked and I answered, my opinion is just as valid as Nancy's and counts for more than yours.
beam me up scottie
Jan 2016
#121
More: "Thank the Catholic church for terrifying abortion restrictions in Latin America"
beam me up scottie
Jan 2016
#107
Rightwing Watch: The Personhood Movement: Internal Battles Go Public
beam me up scottie
Jan 2016
#96
Yes there are female bodhisattvas (enlightened beings) in Buddhism.
Manifestor_of_Light
Jan 2016
#81
Until this year, The Presiding Bishop of the U.S. Episcopal church was Katharine Jefferts Schori...
Journeyman
Jan 2016
#24
Funny thing. Look up the origins of the goddess Columbia and her importance
Promethean
Jan 2016
#128
I think that's true for most institutions - the views of the dominant class prevail
malaise
Jan 2016
#49
And they are codified in texts considered to be hand made by God, backward norms made sacred
Bluenorthwest
Jan 2016
#76
The dictionary definition of the word squaw is "an American Indian Women". Had no idea
doc03
Jan 2016
#133
Movies? Of course one must base all one knows about First Nations people on movies.
Cleita
Jan 2016
#103
TPTB are also killing the planet AKA "Mother" Nature. They really hate women. nt
valerief
Jan 2016
#102
It's easier to justify injustice if you are guided by an invisible being whose will only you know
DFW
Jan 2016
#134
Because almost every religion codifies the existing power structure. eom.
Bad Thoughts
Jan 2016
#144
I think it's more like the power structure adopting and adapting what suits them
malaise
Jan 2016
#148
Yes. It's the outward show of the crux. The crux can be ferreted out. One theory is Marilyn French's
ancianita
Jan 2016
#149
Most of the ones that have gained and retained power were made up for that very reason.
Arugula Latte
Feb 2016
#165