The Stupak Amendment lays bare a basic split in thinking over healthcare policy--actually two splits.
First split: Is national healthcare about health, or is it about politics? "Progressives" deny any distinction between health and politics; to them, healthcare is politics, and politics is healthcare. And so if abortion is "progressive," then by golly, abortion has to be in everything, because to a good leftist, politics should permeate everything.
But the United States Council of Catholic Bishops doesn't agree, and that laid bare a second split over healthcare, between the mostly secular view of progressives, and the more faith-based view, which draws its inspiration from Matthew 25:40, in which Jesus says, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
Secular leftists were happy, of course, to have the Bishops' support on national health insurance--Catholic support for the idea goes back to the 19th century--but when the Bishops peeled away on abortion, as they always do, those same leftists were just as happy to lambaste the Bishops. Thus the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Honorable Lynn Woolsey, threatening the tax-exempt status of the USCCB.
But before leftists go too far down this vengeful road, they should Google Kulturkampf, a word that emerged from an earlier period of state-church relations, in 19th century Germany. If the Catholics could beat back Otto Von Bismarck, the Iron Chancellor, they can probably beat back Ms. Woolsey.
Waffling? Foot in Mouth Disease?
ReplyDelete"OBAMA: You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we’re not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions. And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we’re not restricting women’s insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you’re happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it’s not going to change. So, you know, this is going to be a complex set of negotiations. I’m confident that we can actually arrive at this place where neither side feels that it’s being betrayed. But it’s going to take some time."
The Senate needs to come up with its own bill first, and then the two sides need to come to a compromise. It will be at that time, late at night, with 38 minutes before a vote, that the progressives will again shove the politically correct (from their persective) but morally inconceivable (for the rest of us) provisions into the bill.
ReplyDeleteYes, the Catholic Bishops are for healthcare, especially if the illegal aliens in their flock get to sneak in, so they can safely have more little Catholic babies, which will increase the Catholic ranks in America, and increase donations.
I really hope I am wrong. I am praying that the progressives in the Senate are brash enough to try to put these provisions into the Bill in broad daylight. I want to see every Catholic minister and Bishop rise up against Obama, and yes, I can't wait to see them take direct aim at all the Democratic and progressive Senators in Congress. I want to hear this Bill hammered from the pulpits of America. I want to see the anti-healthcare ads posted by the US Chamber of Congress, and the health insurance companies. And the Doctors!! How can they be so quiet about this Bill? I'm flummoxed by this!
I understand that since the AARP backed the healthcare bill, it has lost 20% of its membership. As well it should. If Cap and Trade gets up to the Hill and the AARP backs that, the other 80% should defect.
A