TPMDC
Showdown On Abortion: Catholic Groups Face Off In Final Health Care Fight
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Nuns and Bishops
Share
Send to a friend!
It's been coming for weeks. For at least the third time in the year-long fight over health care reform, abortion has become the seemingly insuperable issue standing between Democrats and their signature agenda item. And now, as we inch closer to a final vote on health care, Catholic groups are getting into the fray -- and are opposing each other on the issue of reform.
On one side, there is the Conference of Catholic Bishops, who take a conservative line on the issue. Like Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), they are adamantly opposed to the language in the Senate health care bill, and, back in November when the House passed its own legislation, the Bishops played a key role in inserting heavily restrictive abortion language at the last moment.
On the other side, however, other Catholic groups like the Catholic Hospital Association and about 60,000 nuns are chiming in--as are key pro-life Democrats who support the Senate language--and they're saying, in essence, ignore the Bishops, and pass this bill. The difference of opinion among Catholics could open up wiggle room for pro-life Dems looking for a way to support health care.
But, there's very little room for negotiating. The language in the Senate bill almost certainly can't change through reconciliation, and many pro-life House Dems--led by Stupak--believe it allows for federal funding for abortion. That means it's gut-check time and about a dozen on-the-fence Dems have started turning to priests, Catholic groups, and each other, for guidance and cover.
Stupak himself remains unconvinced. On MSNBC this morning, he reiterated his stance that the Senate bill funds abortions.
Yesterday, leaders of the vast majority of Catholic nuns endorsed the Senate bill in no-uncertain terms. "We write to urge you to cast a life-affirming "yes" vote when the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590) comes to the floor of the House for a vote as early as this week," the Nuns wrote in a letter to members of Congress. "[T]he Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions. It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments - $250 million - in support of pregnant women. This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it."
The Catholic Hospital Association also endorsed the bill earlier this week, as did pro-life Dem. Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), who says voting for the bill is the pro-life. "I am convinced that the Senate language maintains the Hyde Amendment, which states that no federal money can be used for abortion," reads a statement from Kildee, who once studied to be a priest. "There is nothing more pro-life than protecting the lives of 31 million Americans."
And in another sign that the success or failure of this bill may rest in pro-life members receiving dispensation of some sort to support it, priests were walking the hallways of the Capitol, near House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office yesterday.
As of earlier this week, though, none of this movement was enough to sway another leading pro-life Dem: Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH). And most of the people who've been following Stupak's lead continue to hold out. But Kildee is in. Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) is in. Pro-life Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) is in. And that list will have to grow if health care reform is to become the law of the land.
Comments (76) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
mans_best_friend
March 18, 2010 11:52 AM
I'd really appreciate it (seriously) if one of these people could answer a couple of questions for me:
You certainly are entitled to your beliefs, but what gives you veto power over what is a legal medical procedure for everyone else? I'm fairly certain some Christian Scientists might object to federal funding of health care generally, but should they have veto power over Medicare and Medicaid? If not, then what makes you special?
You claim you should have the right to not have your tax dollars used for things you don't like. Do all the rest of us have that right or just you? Can I veto funding for nuclear weapons or farm subsidies? Churches are exempt from the taxes that pay for local services, such as fire and police protection, meaning my taxes subsidize protection of your church. Can I veto that?
Just asking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jaycal
March 18, 2010 2:04 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
"TAX THE CHURCHES... TAX THE BUSINESSES OWNED BY THE CHURCHES..."
-Frank Zappa (the late great)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
March 18, 2010 5:26 PM in reply to Jaycal
co-sign, and then some
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 18, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Hey jackass, they are not trying to decide what constitutes a legal medical procedure. They are trying to stop the taxpayer from having to pay for an unnecessary, elective procedure to which vast millions of Americans object. All the other examples you mention are pure bullshit. Get back to me when the government starts paying for tummy tucks, penile enlargements, breast augmentation, face lifts, dental veneers, rhinoplasties, hair transplants, etc. Because like elective abortions (which are the only type barred from taxpayer dollars under the Stupak amendment) all those procedures are unnecessary and elective. And taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for any of them; and they don't. Abortion advocates want to carve out an exception for abortion, and abortion only, as the only unnecessary, elective medical procedure paid for by the taxpayer. Unless of course you are arguing that the taxpayer should be paying for someone's liposuction or breast enlargement. But I don't think you are.
By the way, your mention of nuclear weapons and such seems to concede the fact that the Senate language does in fact pay for elective abortions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joevan
March 18, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to masanf
Hey Jackass,
Can I ask what the fuck is wrong with you that you have to start a reply to somebody like that? Did the priests not fuck any manners into you in church as a boy?
As for "unnecessary" procedure: that's in the eye of the beholder isn't it? You're assuming as a premise the very thing under debate. It isn't currently up to the government to make qualitative decisions about a woman's decision to have an abortion. But then avoiding circular logic isn't exactly a strength of the faithful.
Man's best friend makes a good point, though. Why should the taxpayer subsidize, through provision of public services, unnecessary and elective social clubs of dipshits who believe superstitious lies that millions of people object to? No locality offers free police and fire protection to NAMBLA--I hardly see the difference between them and your church.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
March 18, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to joevan
The difference is that NAMBLA at least claims that their relationships are consensual. The RCC doesn't even bother with that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LeaningLeft
March 18, 2010 4:24 PM in reply to joevan
Ah yes, assume all priests are pedophiles. Gotta love bigotry. Let's try some more...
I saw on the news that a black guy robbed a gas station. All black men must be thieves.
I saw a Mexican drug dealer on the street. All Mexicans want to sell drugs to your kids.
I met a woman who wasn't very bright. All women are stupid.
In my book you are on the same level with people who believe those things. You are all ignorant bigots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joevan
March 18, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to LeaningLeft
Um, did it escape your notice that the Catholic Church, unlike all black people, Mexicans and women, is a voluntary, tight and legally defined hierarchical institution that exercises authority over the laity?
From the highest levels it has, as a matter of institutional policy, shielded criminals--not only from prosecution, but to the point of enabling them to commit further crimes against children. As is now clear, this abuse and the cover up was institutionalized in church-run orphanages and schools and juvenile centers in Canada, Ireland, Australia--and, it emerges, in Germany as well. So far.
Show me a member of that church hierarchy, which refuses serious dialogue and responsibility for its crimes, whoisn't complicit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MollyNYC
March 18, 2010 10:17 PM in reply to LeaningLeft
A few years back, when the Globe was covering this matter in Boston, I emailed one of the reporters about the numbers in his story. He had reported ninety-odd priests implicated out of a then-current population of nine-hundred-odd priests in Boston. "10%? Did I read this right?" I said.
He emailed back and pointed out that the first number included retired and ex-priests. However, even if you assume a rather generous 50% attrition rate, that's still 5%--1 priest out of every 20--raping his congregants.
And note that--since everyone reserved every scrap of their outrage solely for the priests who were sticking it to underaged boys (1)--very few of the priests who were abusing girls were even counted.
So, no, not all pedophiles. A remarkably high percentage, however.
But here's the thing: The priests who decided the righteous, moral thing to do was assist men who used their religious authority to intimidate sexual services out of children and to get away with rape--what you'd think would be the last thing in the world they'd condone--they're the ones who became cardinals and bishops now.
And the Pope.
Meanwhile, the whistleblowers, the ones who picked their duty to their parishioners over covering the archdiocese's ass--they're running bingo games out at St. Neverheardofhim's. (Assuming they've even stayed priests--would you, under those circs?)
Every so often someone from the RCC complains that no one is interested in joining the priesthood anymore. They usually blame it on lax modern morality.
Right, that's the reason.
_____
(1) Old news: The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are straight males. Around 25% of the women and girls in this country became some asshole's sexual plaything at ages when they should have been getting their own playthings at Toys R Us.
And it barely registers. Nobody gives a sh t.
But when it happens to a boy? Oh, then everyone's all torches and pitchforks.
Obviously, I don't wish this on anyone. But I do wish the difference in people's reactions wasn't so gaping.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Whenwillthisnightmareend
March 18, 2010 11:27 PM in reply to LeaningLeft
All priests may not be pedophiles, but it's abhorrent when the "church" aids and abets the predatory behavior of child rapists, concealing their crimes from legal authorities, providing aid and comfort as well as a livelihood with more fodder for their perversions. Yet these self righteous pompous bigots want to put the screws to the middle class of this country in order to further their own hypocritical agenda. Why, I wonder how many of these priests took their child brides to an abortion clinic to dispose of the evidence of their crime, swore those children to secrecy, and then had the pope threaten those children with excommunication and certain damnation to hell for tempting their confessors. They make me vomit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jesus H. Christ
March 18, 2010 6:23 PM in reply to joevan
joevan -
your observations become more cogent s you simmer down later in the string. Thou shalt not call the jackass dipshit, yo?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joevan
March 18, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to Jesus H. Christ
Well, coming from Jesus Christ himself ... Should have said "credulous victims."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 18, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Another question that I have is that if money is fungible, and if it's really not possible to separate money coming from premiums subsidized by the government from money coming from premiums paid directly by the insured, then shouldn't that principle apply as well to government money that goes to subsidize things like textbooks for private religious schools? How can the government subsidy be separated from the money used to proselytize? And wouldn't that mean that no government money should go for any purpose to schools that include religious instruction as part of the curriculum?
Why is money fungible only when the subject is abortion?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davran
March 18, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to slb
Amen!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
March 18, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to slb
I agree completely. The argument Stupak is making, taken to its logical conclusion, would prohibit abortions for everyone. We all drive on roads paid for with government funds. At the very least it applies to anyone who has ever received a tax credit, much less AFDC or food stamps. I'd love to hear these guys claim that anyone who's ever gotten a federal dollar can't have an abortion.
Funny thing is, we've already got a law on the books (Hyde) that covers exactly what is and isn't government subsidy of abortion. And the Senate bill is compatible. Everything else is window-dressing.
Also, and not really related...what on Earth was going through Stupak's head when he said what he really wanted was for the bill to pass over his nay? How can you vote against something while admitting you want it to pass!? It just makes my head spin!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
starfightersimon
March 18, 2010 4:48 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
"You certainly are entitled to your beliefs, but what gives you veto power over what is a legal medical procedure for everyone else?"
I hear this argument all the time. I totally am in favor of HCR, and hope the work passes in the next 72 hours, but as for whether the Catholic Church or anybody with free speech has the ability to comment on this issue, I'm pretty in favor.
The comment in question is whether a religious group should be discussing an irreligious topic, but thats not how they see it. They believe that abortion is morally wrong, and that this bill would enable bad morality. The nuns feel poor healthcare insurance practices are morally wrong, and feel this bill would be a positive moral choice.
Do morality and religion have any relationship? Absolutely. Religion is an established set of beliefs. Everybody is religious. Everybody has a set of values they feel are important. Take euthanasia: what logical scientific position is there to take in regard to ending the life of a willing elderly person? If you have a position on this, you have stepped outside the boundaries of what is mathematically calculatable, and you have entered into a value-driven moral debate.
I disagree with the Bishops, but agree with their ability to criticize the moral operations of government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joevan
March 18, 2010 5:20 PM in reply to starfightersimon
The bishops, at least, are not simply commenting on morality--neither on that of abortion nor on healthcare.
They are making a specific argument that as a matter of public policy taxpayer money should not go to provide specific medical procedures for women because a narrow segment of the population, on rationally indefensible albeit sincere, metaphysical grounds deems that procedure immoral.
That argument is contestable. It cedes control over otherwise private and legal and medically sound activity to a religious minority; it sets the precedent, problematic at least, that certain constituencies should be afforded the right to withdraw or shield their tax dollars from public programs in the service of ends that have otherwise been determined by the public through their representatives(Are you going to say that I can have my Iraq war money back, and my neighbor the state department funding for Blackwater..and what else?)
The objection people are making here is not that the church cannot speak on morality, but that religion is being used a grounds to change public policy in ways that would not be countenanced (including by the church itself) for other constituencies on non-religious grounds. Further, that it is inappropriate for the church to use a presumptively secular government to achieve its ends with respect to all citizens, rather than preach itself to its own members.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
starfightersimon
March 18, 2010 7:05 PM in reply to joevan
"The bishops are not commenting on morality... they are making a specific argument..." How are these different?
"... because a narrow segment of the population, on rationally indefensible albeit sincere, metaphysical grounds deems that procedure immoral."
I'm with you morally, but to say that their argument is irrational is a matter of perspective. They *rationally feel that what they deem infanticide is bad for society. This is the basis of an argument: two people with different rationalities.
"That argument is contestable. It cedes control over otherwise private and legal and medically sound activity to a religious minority."
No it doesn't. Abortion will not be controlled by the church, it would be controlled (and is controlled) by the government's legislation of the medical establishment.
"It sets the precedent, problematic at least, that certain constituencies should be afforded the right to withdraw or shield their tax dollars from public programs in the service of ends that have otherwise been determined by the public through their representatives(Are you going to say that I can have my Iraq war money back, and my neighbor the state department funding for Blackwater..and what else?)"
This is already happening. You can opt out of medicare. You can avoid the draft as a conscious objector. I'm not in agreement with them, but I understand where they're coming from.
I'm only asking you to stop calling their arguments irrational. They are very rational, we just disagree with their values.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
March 18, 2010 6:12 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
I really think the Democratic "common man" is being really stupid for dragging abortion into this issue. I against abortion; some of you are for abortion. I know that I'm right; You know that you're right. It makes no difference either way. The Senate bill is not going to significantly affect the number of abortions anyway. This is just a political tactic to keep the bill from passing.
One day after this bill passes I will jump into a full knock-down, drag-out message board fight with some of you over the merits and evils of abortion. But for now, can we please act like we have some sense and save the abortion fight for another time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Got Kids
March 18, 2010 11:58 AM
I'm with the Nuns. They taught me well and last I heard none of them touched little boys. Unless of course you talked back in school!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 18, 2010 12:08 PM in reply to Got Kids
Agreed. As my ex said during the Falklands War - always bet on the tight assed old lady.
One quibble, TPM - can you find a different photo to represent the nuns? I don't know any nuns who dress like that anymore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 18, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to Got Kids
Good for the Nuns. I may even forgive them for the beatings on the knuckles and the knees with the ruler.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bibimimi
March 18, 2010 5:05 PM in reply to Got Kids
*thwack!*
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
March 18, 2010 11:59 AM
Maybe shallow of me, but it's kind of a good feeling that the headline is now "the Catholic Church is divided" and not "the Democrats are divided"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
March 18, 2010 12:28 PM
Dems are kind of lucky that the Church hierarchy is a little distracted this week. The Pope doesn't have any time for putting uppity nuns in their place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 18, 2010 12:41 PM
"There is nothing more pro-life than protecting the lives of 31 million Americans."
Ya think?
Jesus must be rolling over in his grave over the Roman Catholic Bishops. Hiding pedophilia with one hand and denying medical care to millions with the other.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Jesus would also say, "What's with those goofy hats?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
onecrappyusername
March 18, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to Brownbagger
and what's the deal with this pope guy?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to onecrappyusername
"What? He's in MY entourage! Carrying on MY work? I DON'T THINK SO! I wouldn't be caught dead in a fancy schmancy outfit like that. It's too hot, and too .... uh ... Seventies."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to Cal Gal
He'd also say, "This was not the church I had in mind. Hell, I didn't even want a friggin' church. That was the point. Nobody listens."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
March 18, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to Cal Gal
It's painfully obvious that we don't have separation of church and state, but at least this is separation of church and church.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
March 18, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
John Kennedy, in his 9/12/60 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, talked about an America "where the separation of church and state is absolute - where no Catholic prelate would tell the President how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote....where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any othe ecclesiastical source - where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials...." Perhaps those in government and religion could do us all a favor by reading and contemplating that speech from almost 50 years ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 18, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to Rick Jones
"Organized religion is the worst thing that has ever happened to people of faith." -Mark Twain
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 18, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to Cal Gal
Jesus must be rolling over in his grave...
Um, you must have left before the end of the movie and missed the part about the stone being rolled away, and "Why seek ye the living among the dead?" and that whole big climactic ascension scene. There is no grave, dude -- that's sort of the whole point.
;-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KarenJG
March 18, 2010 4:25 PM in reply to slb
Best comeback EVAH! And I'm not even a Christian!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 18, 2010 12:43 PM
Bart Stupak on the nun's letter:
"When I'm drafting right to life language, I don't call up the nuns." He confers with other groups including "leading bishops, Focus on the Family, and The National Right to Life Committee."
Okay - we knew he was anti-woman not just anti-choice, but apparently he is dumb enough to say so (to Fox News, but these things do get out.)
Connie Saltonstall ought to be able to make use of this quote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
erica
March 18, 2010 4:19 PM in reply to Powkat
Yes, she ought to be able to use it--because Stupak is taking orders from groups that are not primarily Catholic, but are instead heavily influenced by protestant fundamentalists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
akatla
March 19, 2010 3:27 PM in reply to Powkat
Yeah, he was dancing really fast trying really hard to avoid the truth. His truth is that the bishops are men, and are valuable above nuns who are female. This is concurrent with the entire posture of his "C Street" brothers, who are decidedly anti-woman. Unless they are on the Appalachian Trail and can be used for sex and procreation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ErinPDX
March 18, 2010 1:34 PM
STOP CALLING THE PRO-LIFE!!! THEY ARE ANTI-WOMEN, ANTI-CHOICE, ANTI PRIVACY!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to ErinPDX
Good for you. That term should be dismissed everytime anyone uses it. Bravo!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jaycal
March 18, 2010 2:08 PM in reply to ErinPDX
How about "Theocratic Fundamentalists"?
Unfortunately, a significant number of them are women themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
March 18, 2010 2:14 PM in reply to ErinPDX
They are anti-modernity and have been firmly in the anti-modern camp for at least 700 years!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DKDC
March 18, 2010 1:55 PM
You might want to add to this story that the National Catholic Reporter has just endorsed the health bill
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/editorial-national-catholic-reporter-backs-health-bill
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toxophilite
March 18, 2010 2:03 PM
Who knew the Catholic Church was elected to oversee the House?
Moral: be careful who you vote for. After Catholics, Mormons and Southern Baptists might be worse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
March 18, 2010 2:06 PM
I really don't want my taxes used to subsidize pedophiles, but that's what happens when Catholic churches are exempt from the IRS. Hell is too nice a place for Catholic Bishops.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ana Gama
March 18, 2010 2:06 PM
The bishops aren't know for telling the truth. Just ask them about abusive priests.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
March 18, 2010 2:07 PM
OK - I say this as an admittedly lapsed Catholic who completely understands church hierarchy...
But how about we TRY LISTENING THE ELEMENTS OF THE CHURCH THAT DON'T HAVE AN UGLY RECENT HISTORY OF CODDLING OR PROTECTING CHILD MOLESTERS FOR A CHANGE!?!?
Man, I see those "Catholics Come Home" ads, and I get it - faith is faith and the church isn't (supposed to be) politics, but the Vatican keeps moving backwards to Medici land.
I'll come home when the Church does some housecleaning and gets back to what supposed to be its core mission.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 18, 2010 2:08 PM in reply to zonk
Not me. The catholic religion turned me into an atheist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to lousgirl84
...almost turned me into a priest! I got better. Luckily Andrea gave me a different point of view in the backseat of my Ford Fairlane. And that is why their will never ever be a Bishop Brownbagger.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
March 18, 2010 2:07 PM
Thanks, nuns. Your hard work, compassion, and integrity in social services, medical care, and education are the true foundation of the Church.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
March 18, 2010 2:09 PM
Hate to point it out yet again, but.....old white guys.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
paulw
March 18, 2010 2:15 PM
And they still have a tax exemption why?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
March 18, 2010 2:18 PM
Amazing how the left loved the Catholic Church when it came out in opposition to the Iraq war, but now they are telling them to shut the hell up. Ah, hypocrisy at its most blatant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
March 18, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to masanf
Strawman: Left isn't telling anyone to "shut the hell up". They are asking them to get it right and be consistent. The left is being consistent, and the church is not.
It's funny, I was looking in the bible for where Jesus said "get your hands off of MY MONEY!" and "if you get sick, it's not my problem! tough!".
It's news to me that Jesus wanted the poor to die because it's not profitable for Blue Cross's shareholders to help them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
zonk
March 18, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to masanf
We - at least those of us both on the left and Catholic - learn from our teachers.
Church doctrine takes the exact same view on the death penalty as it does on abortion - yet, when I attend mass (which is pretty rare any more), I never fail to hear an intercession for an end to abortion, but I have yet to hear my first intercession against the death penalty. I've seen plenty of Catholic Democratic politicians denied communion or taken to task for not having an anti-abortion voting record, but not so much as a peep about politicians who regularly support the death penalty.
I don't want to the Church to shut the hell up, I want the Church to quite being nothing more than a political adjunct.
The Church isn't bleeding Americans because America is becoming more secular - it's bleeding members because whether lapsed Catholics know the word 'Medici' or not, they know that the Church itself has stopped listening (not to us here on earth, but to He it is supposed to be representing on earth).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Seraph
March 18, 2010 2:39 PM in reply to masanf
Loved? I remember being surprised that they actually got something right for once, as well as being mildly hopeful that the idiot and the monster in the White House at the time might listen to religious authorities when they wouldn't listen to reason, but that was about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
March 18, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to masanf
Wow. An adult that doesn't know what the word 'hypocrisy' means. Disagreeing with someone whom you've agreed with in the past isn't 'hypocrisy' Einstein. Running a campaign on 'family values' while carrying on an affair is hypocrisy. Republicans running around screaming about the deficit while Republicans are responsible for about 90% of the deficit is hypocrisy. Running on an anti-gay agenda while you've got a cock in your mouth is hypocrisy. Someone with an IQ as low as yours has no choice but to be a conservative I suppose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
March 18, 2010 2:29 PM
On one side you have God's saintliest creatures who serve the poor and lead simple, challenging lives. On the other side you have a bunch of nasty old men living in luxury who engage in, or help cover up illegal trysts with young boys.
Bart Stupak just flunked "How to pick your Catholics 101."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theorajones
March 18, 2010 2:33 PM
I'm sorry, but you can't pretend that CATHOLIC NUNS and the CATHOLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION don't understand this bill or care about abortion.
The reality is this bill does nothing to change the status quo on funding abortions. The Bishops painted themselves into a corner when they claimed it did as a negotiating tactic to get their preferred language. Now they're too stubborn to come clean. Sadly, they're willing to sacrifice their own parishioners so they can maintain this false image of always being right and being perfect. Frankly, you'd think they would have learned by now that when you make a mistake you should fix it instead of hiding it, but I guess some people never learn.
Fortunately, the nuns are much more interested in compassion for the sick, and in caring for pregnant women than covering up the Bishop's mistakes.
This bill changes nothing. Except it maybe makes women less likely to have an abortion because it just became easier to care for your children. And it makes children more likely to be born healthy because their mothers can afford prenatal care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pgbach
March 18, 2010 2:43 PM
To put it bluntly, here we are speaking of those Catholics who actually walk the walk of Jesus vs those Catholics who do not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
itsjibba
March 18, 2010 2:45 PM
Some time ago many suggested that John F Kennedy should not be president because he would be beholden to the Catholic Church hierarchy. Most thought it was a unfounded and bigoted argument then, but now Stupak is doing his best to prove the opposite. It is not okay for politicians to ask clergy for permission on their votes. Doing so flies in the face of the first amendment. We need to bury this guy next election.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eve cairo
March 18, 2010 2:50 PM
I cannot believe in the year 2010 we are listening to what the incredibly corrupt, massively dysfunctional Catholic Church has to say. Is this Italy of 50 years ago? They have absolutely no right to interfere in government. Last I looked no priests ran for election for senator or congressman. Didn't Jesus say let he who is without sin cast the first stone? So clean up your own house instead of obsessing about women's bodies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
March 18, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to eve cairo
It's astounding that these bastards have the gall, in the middle of yet ANOTHER enormous priestly pedophile scandal, to feel they can lecture the government of the U.S. about the moral propriety of health care, or any other, legislation.
Why are they still treated with such deferrence by the media?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
March 18, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to eve cairo
Actually American Catholics are becoming more like Italian Catholics: go to church twice and year and ignore the hierarchy. The church is the people, not the bishops.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ward8Mahatma
March 18, 2010 3:07 PM
I am impressed by the chutzpah (how's that for ecumenical word choice ?) of the nuns. Standing up to the bishops at this time is particularly courageous given the two investigations of orders in the US the Vatican began last summer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/02nuns.html
As far as I'm concerned, this is the closest a nun can come to giving the finger to the big boyz without actually doing so. Kudos sisters & I take back all those "penguin" jokes I've told over the years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
March 18, 2010 3:29 PM
Who really cares what the Catholic Church thinks? What? They don't have enough GUILT as it is? These closet pedophiles have been twisting the scriptures to keep the power for well over a thousand years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CPM
March 18, 2010 3:37 PM
60,000 nuns can't all be wrong. I have new respect for the nuns who taught in my Catholic school when I was a kid.
Typical that a bunch of questionably celibate old men would be hypocritical and mean enough to want to deny 39 million women, children and men decent health insurance. Or the millions who have been denied care by the insurance companies they pay premiums to.
Go girls!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Emily B.
March 18, 2010 3:45 PM
Three cheers for the nuns for standing up to the bishops, but still, why are our representatives looking to their religious leaders to vet this legislation at all?
JFK, 1960:
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials. . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
erica
March 18, 2010 4:25 PM
PLEASE CHANGE THE HEADLINE ON THE FRONT PAGE.
Sorry to yell, but I wanted to get your attention. It should be something more like "Catholic groups defy bishops, support Health Reform." It's a more accurate representation of what is important about this story, which is that what has been seen as an across the board disapproval of the bill based on abortion language is now breaking down as more practical, less Vatican-entrenched Catholics make the choice about what "pro-life" really means.
It's a big story, and it's not the division between Catholics that's important, it's that Catholics are defying the Bishops.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bibimimi
March 18, 2010 4:58 PM
Is Catholic Charities going to pick up the slack if their parishioners are denied coverage? it's just like the pious to favor the not-yet born over the living lining the pews.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johann
March 18, 2010 5:08 PM
It is interesting that the Catholic Church is split along mostly sex on this issue.
The Catholic organizations dominated by men are against abortions and the Catholic organizations run by women are for it.
Telling.
.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jesus H. Christ
March 18, 2010 6:26 PM
The primary concern of the Catholic Church is sex nd the fear of women. Most of my bretheren realize that my bishops know not what they do nor about what they speak.
Catholics need to get on bord with health care reform. My bishops would have people believe that they will be rewarded and well in heaven. I've been there and I say no way. Get it now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jesus H. Christ
March 18, 2010 6:27 PM
I have among us a shortage of "a"s
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 9:57 PM in reply to Jesus H. Christ
You are forgiven. Go in peace, my son.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 18, 2010 9:58 PM in reply to Jesus H. Christ
You are forgiven. Go in peace, my son.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 12, 2010 7:00 PM
John Kennedy, in his 9/12/60 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, talked about an America "where the separation of church and state is absolute - where no Catholic prelate would tell the President how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote....where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any othe ecclesiastical source - where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials...." Perhaps those in government and religion could do us all a favor by reading and contemplating that speech from almost 50 years ago.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?