COMMENTS: 29
Why the Catholic Bishops Who Pushed Through the Stupak Amendment Are Hypocrites
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Belief headlines via email.
As advocates for reproductive health, we are outraged at what transpired in the House over the weekend.
The passage of the Stupak-Pitts amendment goes far beyond the status quo on abortion restrictions and would make it nearly impossible for insurance plans in the new system to offer abortion coverage.
This campaign succeeded in large part because its supporters perpetuated falsehoods about abortion coverage in the new system.
Most notably, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and its allies in the House distorted the facts about the health reform proposal by claiming that the proposed system would have used federal dollars to cover abortion care. They’re wrong.
The original House bill included a compromise that required all plans to separate public and private dollars in the new system — ensuring that no tax dollars would ever cover abortion services.
In fact, the bishops should be familiar with this arrangement because it reflects the same principle of separation that guides their financial interaction with the federal government. The bishops have a long history of almost unlimited access to enormous quantities of federal funding. When it comes to funding for Catholic schools and hospitals or programs run by Catholic Charities, they accept federal funding with open arms. The bishops never question their own ability to lawfully manage funds from separate sources to ensure that tax dollars don’t finance religious practices.
Yet they reject the idea that others could do the same. This is the very definition of hypocrisy.
For example, Catholic hospitals depend on federal funding. Indiana has 35 Catholic hospitals and 26 other Catholic health-care facilities. In 2007, 58 percent of patients who visited these facilities were covered by Medicaid or Medicare, a proportion reflected across the country. With well over half of their revenue coming from the government, it is safe to say that Catholic hospitals survive on government funding as well as contributions from private sources.
Catholic Charities, the domestic direct service arm of the bishops, also depends on state and federal dollars. Sixty-seven percent of Catholic Charities’ income comes from government funding. That represents over $2.6 billion in 2008 — an amount that is more than three times as large as the next largest charitable recipient of federal funds, the YMCA. Just as Catholic hospitals do, Catholic Charities receives enormous quantities of government dollars while abiding by existing constitutional and statutory requirements that prevent government sponsorship of religion.
The bishops know that a vast majority of Americans, including Catholics, disagree with their hard-line dictates regarding reproductive-health care, including the bishops’ opposition to contraception.
However, when it comes to health care reform — from which many millions of people will benefit — the bishops injected divisive politics into the process and overran a compromise that would have guaranteed that no federal dollars would cover abortion care.
As this debate moves forward, U.S. senators and the public should challenge the bishops’ hypocrisy. If separation of federal funds and private dollars works for the church hierarchy, then it should also work for women’s reproductive-health care.
Stay up to date with the latest Belief headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harpy on Nov 13, 2009 7:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: clvngodess on Nov 13, 2009 5:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beck on Nov 13, 2009 6:30 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.wwmt.com/articles/0in-1369313-margin-bottom.html
The Republican National Committee's own health insurance policy has covered elective abortion since at least 1991. Want another chance to take that in?
THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE'S OWN HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY HAS PAID FOR ELECTIVE ABORTIONS SINCE AT LEAST 199l. I say "at least" because the current policy covering elective abortion has been used by the RNC since 1991. The previous policy probably also covered it; that I do not know, though.
They were quick on the draw, though: in the last 24 hours, they got on the ball and removed it. Hopefully some investigative reporter will use the Freedom of Information act and find out how often they paid for abortions compared to the average policy. Since reading that Catholics have a slightly higher abortion rate than the general population, and the Bible Belt a higher rate than the Blue states, my guess would be that Republicans using that plan have had more abortions than Americans using other plans.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harpy on Nov 13, 2009 7:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ML561 on Nov 16, 2009 8:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 13, 2009 7:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr.Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melpol on Nov 13, 2009 7:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harpy on Nov 13, 2009 7:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 13, 2009 7:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People that are choosing one sex or the other no the words wright and wrong. these people that sleep with there own are lost in there own desires from hell.
Even women because what they do brings great lust to men to become like them when they see the two, "Females, English mate'
killing our babies and using there cell's to grow breast's yes and all kinds of sick perverted things that these doctor Jecho scientists dream up they all are inn keepers for hell.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "The real dea' me.
Posted by: dougasbury
» What you talkin' 'bout Willis?
Posted by: felipe
» Well, that clears everything up.
Posted by: Beck
» RE: "The real dea' me.
Posted by: ML561
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Nov 13, 2009 8:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My suggestion, since there is in the Constitution a separation of "Church & State", and they have violated their end, how about we cut off their tax exemption status - this way some of that tax money they currently don't pay, can go to help feed, clothe, & help pay the bills, of the women that would be forced to bear these children, that these paternalistic celibate men have decided they should have, because they don't believe in contraception either!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Nov 13, 2009 9:10 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I concede that in a free society, abortion cannot & should not be illegal!
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ProfBob on Nov 13, 2009 10:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debate on abortion is merely opinion. Moral values are based on either self-centered, God-based or society-based non-provable basic assumptions. For the Catholic viewpoint let me excerpt from the free ebook series “And Gulliver Returns” (http://andgulliverreturns.info) The Abortion chapter in Book 4 elaborates the pros and cons of the 3 ethical assumptions. Let me attempt to summarize the changing Catholic position. From the 13th Century the views of St. Thomas Aquinas, that male embryos got their souls about 4 weeks after conception, females somewhat later, were the standard. His was a Christianized view of Aristotle’s ideas.
The crux of the modern idea, that the soul is infused at conception, might be traced to St. Paul (Romans 5:12) who started the ball rolling on ‘original sin.’ 500 years later St. Augustine popularized the idea. But the Blessed Virgin was born without original sin, her Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX declared this in 1854. Then in 1870 he decided that popes were infallible in church doctrine. So was his pronouncement retroactive?
Recent popes have generally followed Pius’s idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. This brings with it some theological problems. Since many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus what happens to these little souls?
Please answer me bishops!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» According to the Established Teachings of the Magisterium...
Posted by: garyfee
» RE: According to the Established Teachings of the Magisterium...
Posted by: Kathy-B
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxsmart on Nov 13, 2009 4:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For one, the public interest is in population control and will only become more so as we try to learn to live within the means of our planet in a zero growth world of sustainable living and enviromental quality and impacts.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxsmart on Nov 13, 2009 4:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Nov 13, 2009 5:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dboy on Nov 13, 2009 6:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Nov 13, 2009 8:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're different.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jacklang0001 on Nov 17, 2009 6:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
have some cheap things ...
nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet ...
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dewre on Nov 18, 2009 4:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
M4R Converter
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gilhowcan on Dec 11, 2009 7:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the bishops want to participate in our government in a non-religious way, according to the First Amendment, let their churches pay taxes. They think they have a right to all the freebies of non-profits, but they think like stupid Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska that they have the right to review all proposed legislation before Congress can act on it. They must already be in heaven because they certainly aren't grounded in the United States portion of Earth!
As for Stupak, he is stupid! Like Joe Lieberman and all other such legislators, they really think they have the right to represent religious institutions instead of the electorates that put them in office to work for all the people in this free, secular democracy. As long as we do not stand strongly against them, they will continue to get more and more brazen about defying the First Amendment and all the wisdom of the Founders who well knew the evil that always came from mixing religion and government. Study your history!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harpy on Nov 13, 2009 7:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: clvngodess on Nov 13, 2009 5:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beck on Nov 13, 2009 6:30 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.wwmt.com/articles/0in-1369313-margin-bottom.html
The Republican National Committee's own health insurance policy has covered elective abortion since at least 1991. Want another chance to take that in?
THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE'S OWN HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY HAS PAID FOR ELECTIVE ABORTIONS SINCE AT LEAST 199l. I say "at least" because the current policy covering elective abortion has been used by the RNC since 1991. The previous policy probably also covered it; that I do not know, though.
They were quick on the draw, though: in the last 24 hours, they got on the ball and removed it. Hopefully some investigative reporter will use the Freedom of Information act and find out how often they paid for abortions compared to the average policy. Since reading that Catholics have a slightly higher abortion rate than the general population, and the Bible Belt a higher rate than the Blue states, my guess would be that Republicans using that plan have had more abortions than Americans using other plans.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harpy on Nov 13, 2009 7:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ML561 on Nov 16, 2009 8:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 13, 2009 7:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr.Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melpol on Nov 13, 2009 7:10 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harpy on Nov 13, 2009 7:14 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 13, 2009 7:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People that are choosing one sex or the other no the words wright and wrong. these people that sleep with there own are lost in there own desires from hell.
Even women because what they do brings great lust to men to become like them when they see the two, "Females, English mate'
killing our babies and using there cell's to grow breast's yes and all kinds of sick perverted things that these doctor Jecho scientists dream up they all are inn keepers for hell.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "The real dea' me.
Posted by: dougasbury
» What you talkin' 'bout Willis?
Posted by: felipe
» Well, that clears everything up.
Posted by: Beck
» RE: "The real dea' me.
Posted by: ML561
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Nov 13, 2009 8:02 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My suggestion, since there is in the Constitution a separation of "Church & State", and they have violated their end, how about we cut off their tax exemption status - this way some of that tax money they currently don't pay, can go to help feed, clothe, & help pay the bills, of the women that would be forced to bear these children, that these paternalistic celibate men have decided they should have, because they don't believe in contraception either!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Nov 13, 2009 9:10 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I concede that in a free society, abortion cannot & should not be illegal!
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ProfBob on Nov 13, 2009 10:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The debate on abortion is merely opinion. Moral values are based on either self-centered, God-based or society-based non-provable basic assumptions. For the Catholic viewpoint let me excerpt from the free ebook series “And Gulliver Returns” (http://andgulliverreturns.info) The Abortion chapter in Book 4 elaborates the pros and cons of the 3 ethical assumptions. Let me attempt to summarize the changing Catholic position. From the 13th Century the views of St. Thomas Aquinas, that male embryos got their souls about 4 weeks after conception, females somewhat later, were the standard. His was a Christianized view of Aristotle’s ideas.
The crux of the modern idea, that the soul is infused at conception, might be traced to St. Paul (Romans 5:12) who started the ball rolling on ‘original sin.’ 500 years later St. Augustine popularized the idea. But the Blessed Virgin was born without original sin, her Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX declared this in 1854. Then in 1870 he decided that popes were infallible in church doctrine. So was his pronouncement retroactive?
Recent popes have generally followed Pius’s idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. This brings with it some theological problems. Since many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus what happens to these little souls?
Please answer me bishops!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» According to the Established Teachings of the Magisterium...
Posted by: garyfee
» RE: According to the Established Teachings of the Magisterium...
Posted by: Kathy-B
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxsmart on Nov 13, 2009 4:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For one, the public interest is in population control and will only become more so as we try to learn to live within the means of our planet in a zero growth world of sustainable living and enviromental quality and impacts.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxsmart on Nov 13, 2009 4:35 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Nov 13, 2009 5:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dboy on Nov 13, 2009 6:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Nov 13, 2009 8:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're different.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jacklang0001 on Nov 17, 2009 6:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
have some cheap things ...
nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet ...
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dewre on Nov 18, 2009 4:51 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
M4R Converter
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gilhowcan on Dec 11, 2009 7:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the bishops want to participate in our government in a non-religious way, according to the First Amendment, let their churches pay taxes. They think they have a right to all the freebies of non-profits, but they think like stupid Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska that they have the right to review all proposed legislation before Congress can act on it. They must already be in heaven because they certainly aren't grounded in the United States portion of Earth!
As for Stupak, he is stupid! Like Joe Lieberman and all other such legislators, they really think they have the right to represent religious institutions instead of the electorates that put them in office to work for all the people in this free, secular democracy. As long as we do not stand strongly against them, they will continue to get more and more brazen about defying the First Amendment and all the wisdom of the Founders who well knew the evil that always came from mixing religion and government. Study your history!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Why 'Life Had To Have Been Designed' Is a Terrible Justification for God's Existence
Controversy Grows over Study Claiming Liberals and Atheists Are Smarter
Why 'Everything Has a Cause' Is a Terrible Justification for God's Existence




