Catholic Bishops Shouldn't Interfere on Women's Health Rights
Statement of Reverend Dr. Carlton W. Veazey, President and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:
The now infamous Stupak-Pitt Amendment to the House health care
bill won't only trample women’s access to abortion, as devastating as
that is. It will also trample their faith and conscience.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California stated the issue clearly in floor
debate on the bill: "We're a democracy, not a theocracy."
If the Stupak Amendment is the beginning of a trend, the Catholic bishops
may be dictating policy on a number of social issues.
To be clear, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops inserted into the House bill. The members
of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice - Christian and Jewish
denominations - and millions of Americans of all faiths do not share the
Catholic bishops' doctrine on reproductive issues and do not want the bishops'
views to determine how they live their lives.
Virtually all religious denominations that have taken a position on health
care reform have agreed it should be abortion neutral - that is, it should not
change existing policy on abortion coverage. Clearly, the Catholic bishops'
group is not willing to honor that position. So let's call this "compromise"
what it is: an encroachment on the separation of religion and state and an
affront to a basic constitutional principle.
The fact that the Catholic
hierarchy can dictate what Congress can legislate should be disturbing to all
Americans, regardless of their position on abortion or contraception. President Obama said on Monday that he wanted to adjust the
abortion language in the health care bill so that "neither side feels that
it's being betrayed." But this push for “common ground”
on abortion is partly responsible for the House of Representatives’ retreat on
women's health care - along with the Democratic Party's recruitment of pro-life
candidates. Common ground is a misleading term. The Catholic bishops and their
allies never ceded any ground. The Democratic Party has a lot to answer for in
terms of pushing back women's rights.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Normally, I'd chalk this up to sour grapes, but there are some points in this article that need to be addressed, first and foremost being the statement that "the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops inserted into the House bill."
This shows either a disregard for facts, or a grievous misunderstanding of our legislature works. If the first is true, it should not be allowed to stand uncontested. The Stupak-Pitt Amendment was introduced by Democrat Bart Stupak, the representative from Michigan's 1st congressional district. Rep. Stupak did leverage the weight of the pro-life caucus to get a meeting between the Bishops and Speaker Pelosi, however the was only to bring the bill to a vote . If this amendment is so repulsive, shouldn't a vote be welcomed as a chance to defeat it? 240 members of the House of Representatives voted in favor of the bill. Not 240 Bishops, 240 members of the House of Representatives.
The other point that desperately needs to be addressed is the hypocrisy of an organization whose name starts with "Religious Coalition" crying foul when another religious organization attempts to be heard in government ! You have apparently examined your own religious beliefs and come to the conclusion that abortion is acceptable. You further feel that you need to make your conclusion known to your representatives. Another group has gone through the same process, but arrived at a different conclusion. How is it that they should not be heard?
And before someone pulls "enforcing one's beliefs" out, please consider two points. First, by using federal dollars to fund abortions, you are enforcing your religious beliefs on others. I don't believe abortion is moral, meaning if you force me to help pay for one, you violate my religious freedom . Second, all laws are based on enforcing your moral beliefs on others. For example, the majority of eligible voters in this particular country believe it is wrong to beat one's spouse, however less then half of UN member countries have laws against domestic violence. Prohibitive laws are by definition enforcing the moral belief of the majority on the minority; if everyone believed something was wrong there would be no need for the law in the first place.
The Bishops did not insert the bill, they only exercised their right as citizens to make their opinions known.
If religious cults want to act like PACs, they should be treated like PACs, not like churches.
Sounds like a good idea to me... if you want to play in politics then you should be treated like anyone else who plays in politics.
People, this is the problem that we will have the more we use our government to take resources from one individual and give it to another.
In the case of government-subsidized health care , it would force someone who is morally or religously opposed to abortions to have to fund another person to have that procedure.
The theocracy is unavoidable. Either we force people to pay for others abortions, or we disallow those who are for abortions to be covered. So, which value system are you prepared to force upon the entire population?
The answer should be neither. We were formed as a country as a collection of individuals, with individual freedoms and choices. It is a shame to see how far we have lost our way. In the name of 'security', we will have given up the greatest political system the world has ever known.
Hopefully one day we will remember the importance of individual liberty, and that no cause, no matter how heart-wrenching, is worth sacrificing the one thing that makes us equals.