I'm a Democrat, vote for Democrats, work for Democrats, have 5 children, with 1 more on the way. I'm in no way 'Pro Abortion'. But I also understand coalitions, and that to be a part of one means you need to hold your nose at the things you dislike, while pushing for the things you feel your coalition can deliver …
I'm a Democrat, vote for Democrats, work for Democrats, have 5 children, with 1 more on the way. I'm in no way 'Pro Abortion'. But I also understand coalitions, and that to be a part of one means you need to hold your nose at the things you dislike, while pushing for the things you feel your coalition can deliver on, many of which are in the list of things that are supposedly 'at stake'.
So what is it supposed to mean to me, a lay person, when I read that abortion is 'pre-eminent'? Does it mean I should quit my job? Switch my voting behavior? Do a 180 on any sort of giving or advocacy work I do to be 'pre-eminently' focused on abortion? Or should I stay in my coalition, pray, and hope that I can provide witness to the Gospel to those around me through the way I live my life.
What irks me is that I think many of these Bishops would answer 'yes' to the former, yet they don't have the courage then to say that directly to me. They won't just say in a teaching document "we instruct Catholics that to vote for, support, work for, provide assistance, etc. to any organization or candidate that is pro-choice (regardless of any other consideration or issue) is a serious sin and that if you have you should seek the sacrament of reconciliation, and cease to do so immediately".
I would imagine that would be quite alienating to many Catholic Democrats. It would be painful for me, but I would like to think I would follow suit. I would probably tip my hat to the Bishops. But is it true? Maybe? I don't know. Maybe as a lay person living in the secular world, only I am well suited to discern this? Maybe I'm asking too much of my bishop and too little of my own conscience?
What's off-putting here is that the Bishops that view abortion as the 'pre-eminent' concern- they want to instruct the laity in these documents using the most anodyne language possible,. It feels like they expect lay Catholics who may in fact be conflicted on this, whether personally or professionally, to exhibit super natural courage, while they thread the needle in their actual teachings and come up with language like 'pre-eminent'. As a lay person it just feels like a conference engaged in its own politics as opposed to one that wants to genuinely guide their sheep.
"As a lay person it just feels like a conference engaged in its own politics as opposed to one that wants to genuinely guide their sheep." Agree completely. Thank you for this comment.
The pro-life wing of the Democratic Party was destroyed in November of 2010 when the right-to-life established opposed their re-election simply because they were Democrats.
Only 21 of the House Democrats voted to include the prohibition on the funding of abortion in national health care in the vote taken immediately after the basic health insurance plan passed. My Democratic Representative Joe Donnelly, currently the US Ambassador to the Vatican, was one of them. Right to Life did not oppose his re-election. I presume they didn't attack any of the others, either.
64 not 21 House Democrats voted for the Stupak Amendment. Dahlkemper, Stupak, Mollohan, Driehaus and most of the rest had tens of millions spent against them by the SBA List and the RTL establishment. Driehaus even sued on the false accusation he voted pro-abortion and the SBA List's defense was not that they didn't lie about him, but they had First Amendment rights to say what they wanted.
They others very much were attacked. It was a disgusting action.
That was the first time when the Democrats still had a filibuster proof hold on the Senate. Once they lost that, the House voted on Palm Sunday 2010 to pass the much inferior Senate version which didn't contain the Stupak Amendment. Immediately following that the Stupak Amendment was brought up for a vote. Stupak himself spoke against it. 21 Democrats voted for it. The pro-lifers didn't go after them, but after the others who flipped under pressure.
Yes, the House language was better. The Senate Republicans filibustered the pro-life House bill, as you stated. Hence, it is the Senate Republicans who you should have your ire against. Where are the communion bans for them?
However, while the House language made further advancements than the Senate, neither bill created new funding of abortion. The RTL established lied about this in their service to the GOP and Big Business.
It was falsely claimed that the ACA would fund abortions through the Community Health Centers. Subsequent history has proven that was untrue.
There was no filibuster against the House bill. The Democrats knew that they couldn't make any changes to the Senate bill which had already passed, or they would face a filibuster and there would be no health care bill. So the administration pressured the pro-life Democrats in the House to accept the Senate bill as already passed by claiming they would administratively prevent the required health insurance from covering abortion. The Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby had to sue the government later when the same administration decided to require the coverage of abortifacients in those policies. Abortion was covered in many of the policies businesses were required to offer their employees, so the idea that the law as passed didn't force abortion coverage on people is simply incorrect.
You are correct that the House bill (which you seem to support) could not pass because of the Senate Republicans. Yet you seem to have no criticism for the Senate Republicans filibustering this pro-life legislation. Yes, because of the Republicans blocking the pro-life bill, the Democrats had no choice but to find a work around, which they did.
Obamacare has saved over one million unborn lives and none of the reasons the RTL establishment gave at the time it was voted on (i.e. the Community Health Centers, etc) were true, as history have proven.
Your last sentence is the type of tortured language the RTL establishment used. Obamacare encouraged companies to offer health insurance but there was no requirement that these plans offer abortion. However, most businesses include abortion in their health care plans voluntarily. So that means the Republican proposals which (they claimed anyway) that would just encourage businesses to offer health insurance was a pro-abortion position.
The House bill never even passed the House because it wasn't finished before the Senate lost its filibuster proof majority. The Senate Republicans didn't filibuster it. It never came up for a final vote in the House, much less the Senate. Obama care didn't save any unborn children and instead allowed its plans to include abortion. In some states there weren't any government plans which didn't include abortion as part of the coverage. The plan as passed required employers with more than a given number of employees to provide health insurance which was required by law to cover birth control, some types of which work as abortifacients. Hobby Lobby had to go to the Supreme Court to get the requirement to cover those which work as abortifacients removed in their case.
Since the law allows those plans to cover abortions, which the proposal in House vote 166 of 2010 would have forbidden, those Democrats who voted against it effectively voted to allow plans which fulfill the obligations of the health care law to cover abortion. As you have pointed out, most employer plans do, which would not have been permitted had the vote gone the other way.
No plan required abortion coverage. If you believe that some products marketed as contraceptives are in fact abortifacients, you should sue over that issue rather than deny people health insurance. I would note Hobby Lobby refused to argue the factual basis that contraception is an abortifacient product and Trump never lifted a finger when he ran the FDA.
And are you really arguing that since most private sector employers offer plans that include abortion, we should seek to have more uninsured people?
In the Congressional Record for vote 166 of the House of Representatives in book 2 on page 2186 for March 21, 2010, which one can download from guides.loc.gov/congressional-voting-records/1989-to-present Driehaus clearly voted against amending the health care bill to prohibit it from funding abortion. One will note that 21 Democrats voted to amend the health care bill to prohibit such funding. Stupak speaking against prohibiting such funding and 43 Democrats deciding that they didn't need to protect the unborn was truly disgusting.
I used to put together Congressional voting records for the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment. You can trust me on this one. There were really only 21 pro-life Democrats that night.
I tend to vote Republican and have worked professionally in Republican politics, and I would really like to see (help build?) an organized effort to help pro-life Democratic political candidates (because they do exist even if they are rare) run and win. Life shouldn’t be a political issue, and I feel that showing pro-life Democratic candidates a path to electoral success will be key in removing the political power from abortion.
Although I tend to vote for different candidates than you might, I share your frustration with the political piece. Most Republicans these days also don’t have a stance on life that I find morally acceptable now that Dobbs is settled and the candidates are trying to court the political middle. A firm anti-abortion stance is no longer politically expedient. The temptation to skip certain races is there, but I think eventually I’d find myself in a position of abdicating my civic duty because the entire ticket would be unacceptable to me if judged solely on life.
I really appreciate your comment. It has given me more to consider with regard to my own feelings about our bishops and what we should and maybe should not expect of them. It also gives me hope just in general. Peace to you.
Remember, these are the same bishops who can’t muster the courage to clearly and plainly tell the faithful they are canonically required to do penance every Friday of the year, preferably by abstaining from meat. If they can’t even do that, you somehow expect them to have the chutzpah to speak directly on, we’ll, anything of consequence?
What a tiresome process.
I'm a Democrat, vote for Democrats, work for Democrats, have 5 children, with 1 more on the way. I'm in no way 'Pro Abortion'. But I also understand coalitions, and that to be a part of one means you need to hold your nose at the things you dislike, while pushing for the things you feel your coalition can deliver on, many of which are in the list of things that are supposedly 'at stake'.
So what is it supposed to mean to me, a lay person, when I read that abortion is 'pre-eminent'? Does it mean I should quit my job? Switch my voting behavior? Do a 180 on any sort of giving or advocacy work I do to be 'pre-eminently' focused on abortion? Or should I stay in my coalition, pray, and hope that I can provide witness to the Gospel to those around me through the way I live my life.
What irks me is that I think many of these Bishops would answer 'yes' to the former, yet they don't have the courage then to say that directly to me. They won't just say in a teaching document "we instruct Catholics that to vote for, support, work for, provide assistance, etc. to any organization or candidate that is pro-choice (regardless of any other consideration or issue) is a serious sin and that if you have you should seek the sacrament of reconciliation, and cease to do so immediately".
I would imagine that would be quite alienating to many Catholic Democrats. It would be painful for me, but I would like to think I would follow suit. I would probably tip my hat to the Bishops. But is it true? Maybe? I don't know. Maybe as a lay person living in the secular world, only I am well suited to discern this? Maybe I'm asking too much of my bishop and too little of my own conscience?
What's off-putting here is that the Bishops that view abortion as the 'pre-eminent' concern- they want to instruct the laity in these documents using the most anodyne language possible,. It feels like they expect lay Catholics who may in fact be conflicted on this, whether personally or professionally, to exhibit super natural courage, while they thread the needle in their actual teachings and come up with language like 'pre-eminent'. As a lay person it just feels like a conference engaged in its own politics as opposed to one that wants to genuinely guide their sheep.
This is a really interesting perspective Chris. Thanks for weighing in with it.
"As a lay person it just feels like a conference engaged in its own politics as opposed to one that wants to genuinely guide their sheep." Agree completely. Thank you for this comment.
The pro-life wing of the Democratic Party was destroyed on Palm Sunday 2010. The American Solidarity Party was founded in 2011. Think about it.
The pro-life wing of the Democratic Party was destroyed in November of 2010 when the right-to-life established opposed their re-election simply because they were Democrats.
Only 21 of the House Democrats voted to include the prohibition on the funding of abortion in national health care in the vote taken immediately after the basic health insurance plan passed. My Democratic Representative Joe Donnelly, currently the US Ambassador to the Vatican, was one of them. Right to Life did not oppose his re-election. I presume they didn't attack any of the others, either.
64 not 21 House Democrats voted for the Stupak Amendment. Dahlkemper, Stupak, Mollohan, Driehaus and most of the rest had tens of millions spent against them by the SBA List and the RTL establishment. Driehaus even sued on the false accusation he voted pro-abortion and the SBA List's defense was not that they didn't lie about him, but they had First Amendment rights to say what they wanted.
They others very much were attacked. It was a disgusting action.
That was the first time when the Democrats still had a filibuster proof hold on the Senate. Once they lost that, the House voted on Palm Sunday 2010 to pass the much inferior Senate version which didn't contain the Stupak Amendment. Immediately following that the Stupak Amendment was brought up for a vote. Stupak himself spoke against it. 21 Democrats voted for it. The pro-lifers didn't go after them, but after the others who flipped under pressure.
Yes, the House language was better. The Senate Republicans filibustered the pro-life House bill, as you stated. Hence, it is the Senate Republicans who you should have your ire against. Where are the communion bans for them?
However, while the House language made further advancements than the Senate, neither bill created new funding of abortion. The RTL established lied about this in their service to the GOP and Big Business.
It was falsely claimed that the ACA would fund abortions through the Community Health Centers. Subsequent history has proven that was untrue.
There was no filibuster against the House bill. The Democrats knew that they couldn't make any changes to the Senate bill which had already passed, or they would face a filibuster and there would be no health care bill. So the administration pressured the pro-life Democrats in the House to accept the Senate bill as already passed by claiming they would administratively prevent the required health insurance from covering abortion. The Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby had to sue the government later when the same administration decided to require the coverage of abortifacients in those policies. Abortion was covered in many of the policies businesses were required to offer their employees, so the idea that the law as passed didn't force abortion coverage on people is simply incorrect.
You are correct that the House bill (which you seem to support) could not pass because of the Senate Republicans. Yet you seem to have no criticism for the Senate Republicans filibustering this pro-life legislation. Yes, because of the Republicans blocking the pro-life bill, the Democrats had no choice but to find a work around, which they did.
Obamacare has saved over one million unborn lives and none of the reasons the RTL establishment gave at the time it was voted on (i.e. the Community Health Centers, etc) were true, as history have proven.
Your last sentence is the type of tortured language the RTL establishment used. Obamacare encouraged companies to offer health insurance but there was no requirement that these plans offer abortion. However, most businesses include abortion in their health care plans voluntarily. So that means the Republican proposals which (they claimed anyway) that would just encourage businesses to offer health insurance was a pro-abortion position.
The House bill never even passed the House because it wasn't finished before the Senate lost its filibuster proof majority. The Senate Republicans didn't filibuster it. It never came up for a final vote in the House, much less the Senate. Obama care didn't save any unborn children and instead allowed its plans to include abortion. In some states there weren't any government plans which didn't include abortion as part of the coverage. The plan as passed required employers with more than a given number of employees to provide health insurance which was required by law to cover birth control, some types of which work as abortifacients. Hobby Lobby had to go to the Supreme Court to get the requirement to cover those which work as abortifacients removed in their case.
Since the law allows those plans to cover abortions, which the proposal in House vote 166 of 2010 would have forbidden, those Democrats who voted against it effectively voted to allow plans which fulfill the obligations of the health care law to cover abortion. As you have pointed out, most employer plans do, which would not have been permitted had the vote gone the other way.
No plan required abortion coverage. If you believe that some products marketed as contraceptives are in fact abortifacients, you should sue over that issue rather than deny people health insurance. I would note Hobby Lobby refused to argue the factual basis that contraception is an abortifacient product and Trump never lifted a finger when he ran the FDA.
And are you really arguing that since most private sector employers offer plans that include abortion, we should seek to have more uninsured people?
In the Congressional Record for vote 166 of the House of Representatives in book 2 on page 2186 for March 21, 2010, which one can download from guides.loc.gov/congressional-voting-records/1989-to-present Driehaus clearly voted against amending the health care bill to prohibit it from funding abortion. One will note that 21 Democrats voted to amend the health care bill to prohibit such funding. Stupak speaking against prohibiting such funding and 43 Democrats deciding that they didn't need to protect the unborn was truly disgusting.
I used to put together Congressional voting records for the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment. You can trust me on this one. There were really only 21 pro-life Democrats that night.
I tend to vote Republican and have worked professionally in Republican politics, and I would really like to see (help build?) an organized effort to help pro-life Democratic political candidates (because they do exist even if they are rare) run and win. Life shouldn’t be a political issue, and I feel that showing pro-life Democratic candidates a path to electoral success will be key in removing the political power from abortion.
Although I tend to vote for different candidates than you might, I share your frustration with the political piece. Most Republicans these days also don’t have a stance on life that I find morally acceptable now that Dobbs is settled and the candidates are trying to court the political middle. A firm anti-abortion stance is no longer politically expedient. The temptation to skip certain races is there, but I think eventually I’d find myself in a position of abdicating my civic duty because the entire ticket would be unacceptable to me if judged solely on life.
I really appreciate your comment. It has given me more to consider with regard to my own feelings about our bishops and what we should and maybe should not expect of them. It also gives me hope just in general. Peace to you.
Remember, these are the same bishops who can’t muster the courage to clearly and plainly tell the faithful they are canonically required to do penance every Friday of the year, preferably by abstaining from meat. If they can’t even do that, you somehow expect them to have the chutzpah to speak directly on, we’ll, anything of consequence?