At the eleventh hour in Saturday’s health care debate the issue of abortion raised its ugly head. The Catholic bishops told lawmakers that if any federal money was used to subsidize private or public health care plans that provided abortions, they could not support the bill. This threw conservative democrats into a tizzy. They checked with their bishops and got the same answer. No federal money for abortions. Under this unrelenting pressure, Nancy Pelosi caved. She allowed an amendment to be brought to the floor outlawing federal money for abortions.
Commentators on both sides of the aisle agreed this wAS the biggest setback for the pro=choice forces in years. One woman democrat elected from Colorado said ‘this is the greatest restriction on a woman’d right tyo choose in our careers.”
Should the Catholic bishops have intervened in this debate?
Should the pro=choice forces try to reverse this abortion restriction in the final bill?
What do you think?
What restriction? What restriction? They have the same right as yesterday to have an abortion.
Bishops should be able to make their point like anyone else, and no one can stop them.
Abortion kills a human being. It’s not health care. Pregnancy is a sign the reproductive system is working as it should.
Americans will not be happy about paying for other people’s abortions.
It is no restriction, in reality, from what I understand. One can get a supplemental insurance to cover abortions, if one wishes. My guess is that it would not at all be expensive. And it is true that the nation is divided on this issue. I think the compromise was ingenious. Democrats who voted against the motion were predominantly from districts that normally vote Republican, i.e., they felt they were on a short political leash and were more concerned about the cost of the legislation and interference with personal decisions.
Now before all get into a lather over this, it still has to be argued out in the Senate. Changes to the legislation will definitely be made, although, from what I have read, more to downplay the public option than concerning abortion.
When all is said and done the USAers will have at best a “reformette”. The only winners will be the big insurance trust and the far right bigots.
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html
.
I am really fed up with this sterile abortion debate with absolutists yelling at each other.ishops
Thousands of little children die every day from malnutrition, malaria and other diseases.
What the hell are the bishops doing about those children.
“Should the Catholic bishops have intervened in this debate?”
Short answer: NO.
It’s one thing to speak one’s own mind. It’s quite another to force one’s mind on other people. Bishops have a right to their opinions, just like everyone else. Free speech and all that. But they do not have the right to coerce and intimidate others into agreeing with them by using their religion as a weapon against them!
Does American federal law have such a charge as interfering with the electoral process? Anyone know?
“Should the pro=choice forces try to reverse this abortion restriction in the final bill?”
Already under way. No “should” about it.
“Abortion kills a human being.”
No it does not.
“Pregnancy is a sign the reproductive system is working as it should.”
Only if the woman chooses to be pregnant. If she does not wish to be pregnant, it makes no difference whatsoever if all her equipment is working properly. Just because your car’s engine is perfectly tuned does not mean you have to drive everywhere if you prefer to walk or take the bus.
“Americans will not be happy about paying for other people’s abortions.”
A throw-away statement that means nothing.
You need to make it read: Americans who want to control women and sex will not be happy about paying for other peoples’ abortions.
Most Americans don’t care one way or another. Especially considering that they already have to pay for so many other things from which they gain no personal benefit, but which benefit others. Like schools and school lunch programs and libraries and parks and roads and freeways and “homeland security.”
“One can get a supplemental insurance to cover abortions, if one wishes.”
One might be able to do so if such a thing existed, Barb. But from what I’ve read, it does not exist.
“What the hell are the bishops doing about those children.”
Nothing, Neil.
They don’t consider it to be their problem once birth has actually taken place.
The Bishops have a right to comment on moral decisions their Government makes provided they represent their Christian heritage.
Absolutism is a misrepresentation. Pastoral teaching is a must.
A woman who has an abortion has to knowingly, willingly and willfully realize what she is doing. Unless these three conditions are met her sinfull behaviour is in doubt.
Sinfull behaviour problems are common to everyone and forgiven. God does not allow our sinfull behaviour to come in between our relationship as Children of God.
For women who have had an abortion and have regrets. A pastoral approach would be from the hymn “I will never forget you my people, I have formed you in the palm of my hand. I will never forget you, I will not leave you orphaned, I will never forget my own.
Does a woman forget her baby, or a mother the child within her womb.
Yet even if these forget, Yes even if these forget, I will never forget my own.
Nothing is lost. “All in all, all in one, all in God.
Wow – is there a point, ANY point, in that comment Peter? “sinfull” this and “god does not allow” that – how is that relevant to the point at hand? (hint: god doesn’t exist… we’re talking about bishops and their attempt at influencing politics.)
At least SUZANNE – in all her insane glory – made a relevant(ish) point. She’s wrong of course – like everything she’s ever opined on. Janus shot SUZANNE’s ‘points’ down well, not much else I can say.
I’d also like to echo Neil and Janus’ point about children who are (unfortunately) already born. The great George Carlin once quiped about the catholic doctrine: “If you’re pre-born, you’re fine, if you’re pre-schooled, you’re f***ed!”
How true that statement is!
Oh – and bishops can take any public stand they like… just as long as they don’t expect respect for their archaic thoughts on matters they have ZERO credibility on (like anything sex related). I wish they’d stop crying about the lack of respect they get – they don’t say anything respectful! If you say something stupid expect to be called stupid!
What the hell are the bishops doing about those children.
Catholics send hundreds of millions of dollars in aid around the world. The Catholic Church is one of the biggest sources of aid to third world countries.
Peter writes:
A woman who has an abortion has to knowingly, willingly and willfully realize what she is doing. Unless these three conditions are met her sinfull behaviour is in doubt.
That’s why photo radar speeding tickets are making perjurers out of an entire nation.
When drivers get a speeding ticket in the mail as a result of speeding, as I have on two occasions, the documentation allows you to plead “guilty” right there on the ticket and send it in with your payment. Well, each time I got the ticket in the mail it was at least 2 weeks since the infraction! I have no doubt that I was speeding and that the camera and the photography equipment was working and accurate, but for the life of me I couldn’t remember either being in the spot they claimed I was or speeding.
But I pled guilty as the vast majority of such photo-radar perpetrators do.
However, in doing so, I was committing perjury. Why? Because the documentation makes it very clear that when I sign the form under the ticked off “guilty” box, that I do so under penalty of law that I am telling the truth…but I am pleading guilty to an offense that I don’t remember committing!
And I have to imagine that this is the case for every other driver put in the same position.
So photo radar is making a nation of perjurers because when we all plead guilty we are, in effect, lying to the court because there is virtually no way anyone can remember two weeks after the fact that we committed the actual offense!</I.
(Sorry, this had absolutely nothing to do with abortion, but what can I say? This is the way my mind works!)
Wow – is there a point, ANY point, in that comment Peter? “sinfull” this and “god does not allow” that – how is that relevant to the point at hand? (hint: god doesn’t exist… we’re talking about bishops and their attempt at influencing politics.)
At least SUZANNE – in all her insane glory – made a relevant(ish) point. She’s wrong of course – like everything she’s ever opined on. Janus shot SUZANNE’s ‘points’ down well, not much else I can say.
I’d also like to echo Neil and Janus’ point about children who are (unfortunately) already born. The great George Carlin once quiped about the catholic doctrine: “If you’re pre-born, you’re fine, if you’re pre-schooled, you’re f***ed!”
How true that statement is!
Oh – and bishops can take any public stand they like… just as long as they don’t expect respect for their archaic thoughts on matters they have ZERO credibility on (like anything sex related). I wish they’d stop crying about the lack of respect they get – they don’t say anything respectful! If you say something stupid expect to be called stupid!