REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 29

Why the Catholic Bishops Who Pushed Through the Stupak Amendment Are Hypocrites

The same language the bishops thought too weak to truly ban public funding for abortion maintains their charities' own access to public money.
November 13, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

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.


submit to reddit
Nancy Keenan is president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and Jon O’Brien is president of Catholics for Choice.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email
 
Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

I've already turned you in for spam
Posted by: harpy on Nov 13, 2009 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope they block you from the site

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I've never understood the papacy
Posted by: clvngodess on Nov 13, 2009 5:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Their utter fascination with controlling women's reproduction is sick and absurd. About as sick and absurd as their predation of little boys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The RNC just removed abortion coverage from THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE
Posted by: Beck on Nov 13, 2009 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Found this on google news, a link to this story:

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-

spam not allowed
Posted by: harpy on Nov 13, 2009 7:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
or appreciated

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

RE: hi
Posted by: ML561 on Nov 16, 2009 8:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not feel that this post is appropriate for this particular setting. This post was not created for a dating service, at least as I understand it. Please take your "cougar" messages elsewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

FAUX PRO-LIFERS
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 13, 2009 7:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Real pro-lifers would fight like hell to insure the provision of at least BASIC health care to all fellow US citizens.

Dr.Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Hypocrisy In The Church
Posted by: melpol on Nov 13, 2009 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is revolting to see the church fight for the birth of a fetus and remain silent about the millions of Muslim children that are being maimed. It is not written that the church has to be concerned about others, but if they are indifferent, let it hang out. Admitting that they would rather save a dime than a fetus would be respected. The church must be truthful in order to increase its membership.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Why are catholic bishops
Posted by: harpy on Nov 13, 2009 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
being allowed to interfere in our lawmaking process? This is highly illegal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

"The real dea' me.
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 13, 2009 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Liberal Bias' is not even close the article would not even get this far if it was not rotten to the core' evolution-creationism These same sick people are in the elegance with Satan' sense there phony title rest's upon a right to speak of such disgusting things so it shall be. The real agenda is marauder money and restitution lawyer allowance look threw the dark crystal ball and you will see there ball's dangling there' awaiting payment along with the insurance keepers prison. There is always a silver lining around and article as filthy as this. Or it would not be here ' People learn from me i am wiser than the oldest owls, And i see things as they are hidden deep in the darkens of even the entrance to hell.
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
» RE: "The real dea' me. Posted by: ML561

Comments are closed-

Hypocrisy......
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Nov 13, 2009 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While appalled by these Bishops, I would venture to say that they really do hate women! After all, they didn't appear to have this "faux" outrage when their peers were accused of molesting children (children don't get pregnant, especially little boys)! That's proved by their stubborn intransigence on contraception!

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-

I concede that in a free society, abortion cannot & should not be illegal!
Posted by: JohnTruth2001 on Nov 13, 2009 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That said, I don't endorse embracing abortion as something "wonderful" nor as something to replace contraception.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Let's hear the basics from the bishops!
Posted by: ProfBob on Nov 13, 2009 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the arguments seem to be the self-centered ethical basis of the primacy of a woman's choice versus the unprovable opinion that humanness (read soul) starts at conception.
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]


Comments are closed-

Church and State
Posted by: maxsmart on Nov 13, 2009 4:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps they are beginning to encroach too much on the separation of church and state.
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-

Faith based initiatives
Posted by: maxsmart on Nov 13, 2009 4:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and we are allowing our tax dollars to be used to erode our own religious freedoms...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

More Children to Molest
Posted by: Jersey Devil on Nov 13, 2009 5:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, give the Bishops credit, they need fresh blood for Catholic pedophile priests to pleasure themselves. Fresh meat is a big draw to have more pedophiles join the priesthood.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Sell The Vatican, Feed the World!
Posted by: Dboy on Nov 13, 2009 6:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sarah Silverman has the solution:

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-

Hundreds of Thousands of Adults and Children Will Die Needlessly
Posted by: PaulK on Nov 13, 2009 8:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the cost of no public health care. No other industrialized country on earth is willing to pay that cost of human sacrifice.

We're different.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

http://www.ebuyings.com
Posted by: jacklang0001 on Nov 17, 2009 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.ebuyings.com
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-

no
Posted by: dewre on Nov 18, 2009 4:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i thought they are tired of that.
M4R Converter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

gilhowcan
Posted by: gilhowcan on Dec 11, 2009 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Catholic bishops and all other non-tax paying religionists should mind their religious business and keep their noses out of government. They spent too much time in theology classes and not enough time in civics classes. Obviously, they completely missed what was offered in such junior high or middle school classes.

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]

 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS