One of the most contentious aspects of this weekend's House health care debate was whether federally subsidized insurance plans should be allowed to offer abortion services. An 11th-hour deal to secure passage of the bill handed a victory to anti-abortion lawmakers, with the House including an amendment by Democratic congressman Bart Stupak in the final draft.
In a debate today on TNR.com, William Galston argues that the passage of the amendment proves the influence that religion still holds over politics:
When it comes to social issues, religion matters among Democrats, not just Republicans. Of the 64 Democrats who supported the Stupak anti-abortion amendment, 35 (55 percent) are Catholic. In the Democratic caucus, by contrast, Catholics make up only 38 percent of the total. Put differently: 36 percent of House Democrats who are Catholic supported the amendment, versus 18 percent of non-Catholic House Democrats.
Alan Wolfe takes the opposing view, arguing that the incident particularly illustrates the waning power of Catholics:
The Stupak Amendment mirrored the situation facing Catholics in the whole country. From the 1930s to the 1950s, Catholics tended to agree on the main issues of the day: Most of them were liberal in economic terms and conservative on foreign policy. These days, Catholics are all over the map politically, even on issues on which their Church takes strong stands. According to a March 2009 Gallup poll, there are no significant differences between Catholics and other Americans on either abortion or stem cell research: 40 percent of Catholics find abortion morally acceptable and 63 percent have no problem with stem cells, compared to 41 percent and 62 percent of non-Catholics respectively. In its own way, the Stupak Amendment revealed the single most important truth about American Catholics: their unwillingness to blindly follow Church teachings.
Click here to read Galston's full argument. Click here to read Wolfe's full argument.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (4)
The US Catholic bishops have a lot of power. When they speak--even presidents genuflect. Despite their stated declaration that health care is a human right, the bishops protect the Catholic health networks and hospitals that provide income to the church. "No margin, no mission."
In the February 2009 edition of Hill Notes (pdf available on The US Conference of Catholic Bishops site under Domestic Social Development www.usccb.org) the Church's position was spelled out:
"Health Care Reform
Our Position
The Catholic bishops of the United States have advocated for comprehensive health care reform leading to accessible and affordab ... view full comment
The US Catholic bishops have a lot of power. When they speak--even presidents genuflect. Despite their stated declaration that health care is a human right, the bishops protect the Catholic health networks and hospitals that provide income to the church. "No margin, no mission."
In the February 2009 edition of Hill Notes (pdf available on The US Conference of Catholic Bishops site under Domestic Social Development www.usccb.org) the Church's position was spelled out:
"Health Care Reform
Our Position
The Catholic bishops of the United States have advocated for comprehensive health care reform leading to accessible and affordable health care for all for decades. The bishops have consistently insisted that access to decent health care is a basic safeguard of human life and an affirmation of human dignity from conception until natural death. The framework for comprehensive action should 1) ensure health care coverage that protects all human life; 2) provide access for all with a special concern for the poor; 3) respect pluralism, offering a variety of options and ensuring respect for the moral and religious convictions of patients and providers; and, 4) restrain costs while sharing costs equitably. . . .
. . .The Catholic community provides, pays for, and picks up the pieces of a failed health care system. Last year, Catholic health care hospitals provided health care to one out of six patients in the United States. The Catholic health care system is the largest non-profit health care system in the country."
But the Catholic "nonprofit" providers have strong links to for-profit entities. The statement goes on to say that, rather than supporting a single payer system, the bishops want to see benefits to all stakeholders. Did they mean to include health industry profiteers? Those who would deny care to the sick and the poor?
Ironically, the abortion rate in countries with single payer systems is lower than it is in the US.
In a book published in 1991, Turning Point for Europe, the then Joseph Ratzinger wrote:
Accordingly, the Church doesn’t do more for peace, but actually less, if it leaves its own level of responsibility for faith, education, witness, counsel, prayer and loving service, in order to transform itself into a direct political action society. When she does that, she cuts off access to the sources from which ever new powers of peace and reconciliation can come. [my translation]
It was the one highlight in a book that in response to the events of 1989 said that the future was to go back to the middle ages, and justified the condemnation of Galileo.
In a book published in 1991, Turning Point for Europe, the then Joseph Ratzinger wrote:
Accordingly, the Church doesn’t do more for peace, but actually less, if it leaves its own level of responsibility for faith, education, witness, counsel, prayer and loving service, in order to transform itself into a direct political action society. When she does that, she cuts off access to the sources from which ever new powers of peace and reconciliation can come. [my translation]
It was the one highlight in a book that in response to the events of 1989 said that the future was to go back to the middle ages, and justified the condemnation of Galileo.
Why is there the assumption that "Catholics"--in the Democratic party or otherwise--are marching in lockstep with the hierarchy's pronouncements when it comes to abortion or any other issue? As long ago as 1985, a NYTimes poll of American Catholics revealed that 85% of them believed they could dissent from papal teachings and remain "good Catholics." At that point, over 90% used birth control. Catholic reliance on personal conscience has only increased since then. If one looks at how Catholic voters behave on matters ranging from questions of war and peace to questions of sexuality, they are generally in line with the public as a whole, or are more progressive in their orientation.
Why is there the assumption that "Catholics"--in the Democratic party or otherwise--are marching in lockstep with the hierarchy's pronouncements when it comes to abortion or any other issue? As long ago as 1985, a NYTimes poll of American Catholics revealed that 85% of them believed they could dissent from papal teachings and remain "good Catholics." At that point, over 90% used birth control. Catholic reliance on personal conscience has only increased since then. If one looks at how Catholic voters behave on matters ranging from questions of war and peace to questions of sexuality, they are generally in line with the public as a whole, or are more progressive in their orientation.
The anti-abortion element, in the Congress and generally, is incoherent in its opposition. They view abortion as the taking of a life and so to be opposed. Then they make an exception for certain "unborns:" It's okay to take the life if the unborn child had the wrong father, such as a relative of the mother. What kind of morality is that? Let's face it: it's hypocrisy. If abortion is murder, it is always murder. And if the life of the mother is at stake, well, that, like the countless spontaneous abortions ("miscarriages") that occur routinely in human experience, must be "God's will." The posturing of these cranks makes me sick; but it is moving from relatively harmless (if occasionally let ... view full comment
The anti-abortion element, in the Congress and generally, is incoherent in its opposition. They view abortion as the taking of a life and so to be opposed. Then they make an exception for certain "unborns:" It's okay to take the life if the unborn child had the wrong father, such as a relative of the mother. What kind of morality is that? Let's face it: it's hypocrisy. If abortion is murder, it is always murder. And if the life of the mother is at stake, well, that, like the countless spontaneous abortions ("miscarriages") that occur routinely in human experience, must be "God's will." The posturing of these cranks makes me sick; but it is moving from relatively harmless (if occasionally lethal) talk-radio nonsense to a de facto public policy. And that is dangerous.