(Catholic) Bishops endorse the (House) bill

[kpete]

Source: Politico

November 07, 2009
Categories:

* House

Bishops endorse the bill

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops delivered a critical endorsement to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Saturday by signing off on late-night agreement to grant a vote on an amendment barring insurance companies that participate in the exchange from covering abortions.

"Passing this amendment allows the House to meet our criteria of preserving the existing protections against abortion funding in the new legislation," the Bishops wrote in a letter to individual members. "Most importantly, it will ensure that no government funds will be used for abortion or health plans which include abortion."

The group goes on to say, "The Conference will remain vigilant and involved through this entire process to assure that these essential provisions are maintained and included in the final legislation. With this important step forward we hope the House can come together and finally move forward essential reform which truly will protect the life, dignity, conscience and health of all. We also hope the Senate will follow the example of the House and include these essential safeguards in their version of health care reform legislation."



Read more: http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Bishops_endorse_the_bill.html?showall

---

FULL LETTER:
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Bishops_endorse_the_bill.html?showall

[xchrom]

1. i should be grateful? nt

[still_one]

5. no, but is there a choice? What I mean is would this destroy the chance for a healthcare

bill to ever get voted on?

As much as I am disturbed by this, I think it is critical that we have a reform bill with a public option this year. Reproductive health and a woman's right to choose can be added if and when we get a bill

[xchrom]

7. or if we make the bill bad enough to begin with

we open the barn door for republicans to coming charging right back in.

a choice of lesser evils is still evil.

[patrice]

16. For my information, please, where is the PO in what was just voted on?

I don't get how those of us supporting PO/Medicare for All can support what we currently have here.

I really am asking for your analysis of this.

[begin_within]

2. Oh... I thought we had separation of church and state.

[anonymous171]

22. We do. nt

[Cass]

3. Is this abortion amendment pertinent only to elective abortions, or does it include

medically necessary abortions as well? I have not been able to find out about this.

[mainer]

6. I thought federal funding allowed medically necessary abortions

"rape, incest, and life and health of the mother" -- isn't that still allowed?

[CatholicEdHead]

10. The bishops' stance is zero abortions period

To satisfy the most rabid "pro-life" faction. The USSCB though here does see allowing the medically necessary ones are probably necessary as you get into catch 22 situations regarding life. The most rabid factions will still scream but I am glad they are getting behind it for the health of the mother.

[Roland99]

4. Well, gee, in that case, let's not delay any further, mmkay?

[freddie mertz]

8. Outrageous.

Kill this bill.

[onehandle]

9. LOL! DUers will line up like teabaggers and say No, now. "Whatever they're fer, I'm agin' it!" nt

[patrice]

13. uh . . . there's standing law that already prevents Federal money from being involved in abortion.

So the bishops bought nothing by standing quietly (actually not so quietly by in some cases) while this country was sold into War slavery, in order to buy them their moment in this particular advertisement.

[Lugnut]

11. Like I care.

If they want to play politics they need to pay taxes.

[patrice]

12. Looks like these guys got what they wanted. Too bad about the innocent Iraqis they stood quietly by

so that they could be in this position, as Iraqi lives were destroyed, not to mention the ENSLAVEMENT of American troops.

[onager]

14. Oh, it's approved by misogynistic, supernaturalist assbags? Well, OK then!

:mad:

[cali]

15. Fuck those pigs.

they have no fucking business writing legislation and legislation that of course hurts women. fuck them all.

[customerserviceguy]

17. I agree

but there are a lot of people here willing to trot them out when they call for an end to a particular war we happen to be losing, or for massive anti-poverty spending programs.

I mention this only to point out the hypocracy of those who laud the Catholic bishops when it serves their cause, then damn them when it doesn't.

[patrice]

19. ? This particular fallen Catholic is prepared to appreciate them, though never return, if they

get honest about the similarities between making a free, un-encumbered, moral choice to go to War and a free, un-encumbered, moral choice to have an abortion (although, on an average, "free" and "un-encumbered" and "moral" have little or nothing to do with the types of decisions made in our current culture).

My opinion of the bishops is not something external to their actions. It IS relevant to their actions, so, though I may grant some basic positive social utility, historically at least, to the role they have played in the evolution of Amerika, it IS valid to speak out against them when their actions are so hurtful to disadvantaged others and appreciate them when they are helpful. How can you object to that?

Perhaps I don't understand your point. :shrug:

[customerserviceguy]

20. When the Catholic bishops issue statements

on wars, nuclear proliferation, or anything even remotely connected with poverty, they are upheld by some individuals here as moral leaders, pointing the way to righteousness.

Of course, when they release statements against abortion, equal marriage, or public funding of Catholic education with school vouchers, they are roundly criticized.

I just have a problem with progressive people using Catholic "logic" in one situation, and eschewing it in other situations. It just seems inconsistent to me.

[patrice]

21. Uh, logic is logic, it isn't owned by anyone. We may be able to identify some higher order

principles manifested in several, otherwise, different particulars and there is some danger that, as long as that identification is through inference, there is significant probability of error, but whatever error there MIGHT be it is only probable, not NECESSARY, therefore it is possible for otherwise different phenomena to be manifestations of the same truth(s).

Think of a ground here that is all logical phenomena and, then, think of venn diagrams representing sets of "Catholic logic" and "non-Catholic logic", are you telling me it is impossible for there to be any overlap between the two sets?

And, when it comes to solutions, do we not NEED as many participants as possible? (with caveats, of course, regarding the definitions of "participants" and "possible"), because leaving anyone out who actually shares/participates in a solution makes the success of that solution less probable. No? . . .

Not very Progressive of you - IMHO.

:hi:

[patrice]

23. P.S. Saying that Catholics get something right, doesn't mean that they own you.

[patrice]

24. P.P.S. There has been nothing Ex-Cathedra on ANY of the current issues.

Just papal bulls, letters representing strong advice, not Dogma.

Any Catholic with backbone could stand up and take the social heat in their congregations, but . . . . :-(

[Guilded Lilly]

18. Oh...sure....sure

"...essential reform which truly will protect the life, dignity, conscience and health of all."
Except women. Of course.
Except PREGNANT women specifically.
And last I heard in order to have a pregnant woman, there must be some DICK involved. That tends to be forgeotten.

Excuse the crassness. So many of you make more valid points than just the disrespectful sexist angle of this blatant B.S., but the feminist in me is a bit more outraged at this particular influence of church over state.

[Odin2005]

25. The RCC can eat shit and die, bunch of anti-choice, woman-hating fucks.

Just like their home-boy Stupak.

Fuck Religion.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mstinamotorcity]

26. You know

it seems to me that anyone who professes to be of such a religious nature would not have any qualms about healing the sick. I mean isn't the christianally thing to do? And why is it that someone had to solicit their endorsement, shouldn't they have been marching up and down the streets of Washington D.C. screaming for healthcare for all. I love how people of religion see after the less fortunate.

[harry_pothead]

27. Is there some secret provision in this bill that subsidizes the coverup of child molestation?

Maybe that's why the catholic church likes it.