Share

How Does a Religious Cult Have the Clout to Delay Health Care Vote?

by: Adele Stan  |  AlterNet

photo
(Photo: Caveman / Flickr)

To keep House vote on track, Pelosi struggles to appease the church and The Family cult on abortion language.

Just when it seemed the stars were aligning for an historic vote tomorrow on health-care reform legislation in the House of Representatives, anti-choice Democrats are balking, saying that the plan would permit the indirect flow of federal dollars to fund abortion.

Led by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., a member of the Capitol Hill religious cult known as The Family, and spurred on by the Catholic bishops, anti-abortion Dems are contesting the fact that some small number of private insurance plans offered via the bill's insurance exchange scheme may offer coverage for abortion - even therapeutic abortion. Where the federal dollars come in is via the subsidies for which lower-income people would be eligible for buying insurance through the exchange.

Politico's Patrick O'Connor reports on the church's influence at the negotiating table:

Negotiators are working closely with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to finalize language the church can accept. Vulnerable anti-abortion Democrats don't want to support any bill that the bishops haven't signed off on.

Last time I looked, abortion was a legal medical procedure in the United States. The changes the church wants would virtually forbid abortion coverage, even for women carrying fetuses without a chance of surviving outside the womb. The church seeks to codify its contempt for women into U.S. law, dooming a woman already facing a tragic pregnancy to compromise her life and health - mental and physical - apparently for the sin of having had sex.

As the legislation stands, no federal dollars would directly cover an abortion, and the public plan will offer no abortion coverage. But that's not enough for the men of the cloth.

The question remains, of course, as to whether this is an issue truly of moral conscience, or just a trick for stalling health-care reform. At Michele Bachmann's disinform-athon yesterday on the Capitol steps, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins alleged, untruthfully, that the bill announced last week by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covers abortion, as did several members of Congress. The Family Research Council is a Republican-allied group.

Also creating problems for Pelosi is conservative consternation over the ability for undocumented immigrants to buy private health insurance - using their own money - through the exchange. Already locked out of Medicaid, the government plan for the poor, undocumented workers have few options for getting any kind of health care - and few would be able to afford even the plans offered on the exchange.

Nonetheless, conservaDems apparently feel compelled to maintain a punitive stance toward the people who pick our produce and clean our toilets, in order to assuage the resentment of their constituents. Truth is, it's really bad economics to completely lock the undocumented out of health-insurance reforms, since they'll likely wind up in emergency rooms in the expensive, late stages of illness.

Hospital emergency rooms are forbidden to people away for ability to pay - a circumstance that many Republicans would like to change. Their message: if the severe poverty your nation suffers (partly because the U.S. sucks up all the world's resources) drove you to cross the border at extreme personal risk so you could feed your family, you deserve to die a painful, untreated death. Nice. But until Republicans prevail with their death-camps-for-aliens plan, emergency rooms remain on the hook for the care of very sick undocumented immigrants, whose care we all ultimately pay for in the form of higher health care costs for all.

Meanwhile, mainstream media are speculating that conservative Democrats are getting wobbly on health-care reform because of yesterday's ugly unemployment numbers (10 percent nationally) and the party's gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey.

Neither of these rationales for stepping back from a yes vote makes a whit of sense. Health-care reform makes good economic sense, and it will serve as an economic stimulus as new jobs are created as the building of new systemic health-care infrastructures get under way. Our current health-care system, if you can even call it that, is a job-killer, not a job creator.

As for the east-coast governors' races, both turned on local concerns - not health-care reform.

Now, can we all stop being stupid?

Lost in all this wrangling is the major coup scored by Pelosi yesterday when AARP, which claims to represent some 40 million Americans over the age of 50, endorsed the House bill, backing the bill's cost-cutting of Medicare through a crack-down on fraud and abuse.

The vote remains scheduled for tomorrow, but many expect it to be delayed until at least Sunday, perhaps Monday. Tomorrow, President Barack Obama will visit reluctant lawmakers on Capitol Hill, hoping to twist some Democratic arms.

Meanwhile, Republicans continue their disinformation campaign, seeking to convince fearful Americans that the health-care bill will end all private plans, force them to pay for frivolous abortions, cut benefits from Medicare, sink the economy and create a Marxist-fascist-socialist dictatorship.

Nice.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

The Christian Right, whether

The Christian Right, whether it is Roman Catholic, Protestant or "Fundamental" , is proving once again that it has no connection to the Christ of compassion and sacrificial forgiveness, but is concerned only with the exercise of power over the lives of people. Not satisfied with living "sinless" lives themselves in pursuit of the "Kingdom of God", they are compelled to force others to adhere to their own peculiar visions of "God's Law" or to go without basic health care. Hate, spite and the vile deprecations of the Lord of Hell spew from their mouths, garbed in the words of Scripture. They are surely the "whited sepulchres" of our age!

I hunted through the entire

I hunted through the entire U.S. Constitution, and could not find any provision granting the Conference of Catholic Bishops a voice in our legislative process. Why are American legislators engaged in negotiation with the bishops over the content of our laws? Yes, there are matters of conscience involved in the abortion issue, but conscience is a private matter, not subject to legislation. What legal source provides for dominance by bishops over the rest of us, and why do they get a seat at the negotiating table? Christian shariah is as un-American as any other variety.

If your religion prohibits

If your religion prohibits certain behaviors and activities, I favor imbuing your religious leaders with the legal right to adjudicate the sins as you see them to be. If you believe that abortion is murder and believe that any woman who obtains an abortion should be put to death, I think you should have that right. If you believe that any member of your religion violates your religious law, I favor your being able to deal with that at your own discretion using whatever punishment your beliefs deem appropriate. However, Federal and State law shall establish the minimum number and variety of statutes necessary for a civilized society to survive and prosper, with no regard whatsoever to the wishes of any religious entity. There shall be no law or benefit established that discriminates against any group, for the benefit of another group. All law applies to all. If religions wish to extend the scope of certain laws or enact other laws unique to them, they should be free to do so. Their extended law shall apply only to those believers of that religion and do not extend beyond that religion’s membership. I see this as the only sensible way for different religions to “have it their way” without forcing others to obey beliefs they do not support. The United States is not a “Christian” nation. It is therefore highly inappropriate for any person of any faith to push for or retard the progress of, any legislation based on religious beliefs. I say, let individual religions impose whatever law they want on their flock. Just don’t make me abide religion-specific laws I find offensive and counter to my own beliefs! I am Constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to worship as I choose and you are therefore not entitled to impose your religious beliefs onto me in the form of Federal or State law.

Vision necessary to

Vision necessary to understand: how military force & other populations are manned in large numbers... #1 historic mafia move, par excellence: in 500, Charlemagne has himself crowned as 1st HOLY Emperor by the Pope= he was the 1st "Godfather'! -- defending Roman Cath/Church Pope in exchange for 'holy-god's choice' right to rule supreme over all... Of course you know how much blood was shed because of that action...Note: Bush, Cheney, Rove, Boehner &al families women all lead very comfortable & safe reproductive lives with only a few children?? All these Ochoicers need to go live their reproductive lives elsewhere?? B/c it is very obvious they do not practice what they preach others to do.

Too many words arguing the

Too many words arguing the case against the Catholic Church and the Fundamentalist Pro-Life cults. Plain and simple, shut them out. Call their garbage to the faces of the local proponents and mullahs of those faiths (so-called). Don't let them get away with their endless sermonizing to their ignorant flocks. In many ways, I like the history of the Maoists and Stalinists. They knew how to deal with the stubborn superstitions of their primitive masses. Of course, they went on to apply that to their own intelligentsias. Too bad they didn't practice some moderation, they might still be around to teach us a few things.

Where does the Constitution

Where does the Constitution grant the Federal government the power to regulate health care? If you say "interstate commerce clause" than that should only apply to people purchasing health care across state lines.

Throughout history there has

Throughout history there has been more hatred, bloodshed and war in the name of religion than anything else. Whatever your religion (or lack of it), it is, and must remain a private matter. No one has a right to legislate according to private beliefs. Right wingers, please, get a life! And stop trying to ruin the lives of everyone else.

To the question "Where does

To the question "Where does the Constitution grant the Federal government the power to regulate healthcare?" we can start with the Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Then we can go from there and see that the Constitution gives Congress, the power to enact the legislation to "promote the general welfare of the people." If you want to look for specific policies, then you miss the point of the Constitution as there is nothing specific in Constitution such as "maintain roads" or " a 25 carrier task force Navy", etc. If you want to make your argument by looking for specific policies then you are on a Fool's errand and you are welcome to it. But most of the American public understands the genius of the Constitution is its flexibility so that our government could do what the Preamble set out.

The Preamble of the

The Preamble of the Constitution only states the intended purpose of the Union, it does not give any powers to any governmental body. Further, you have misquoted Section 8 on powers granted to Congress: It does not say "general welfare of the people" but "general welfare of the United States". The intended meaning was clearly promoting welfare of the federation, not the welfare of individuals as liberals today interpret it. According to liberals, the Constitution has no meaning and allows the government to do whatever liberals want the government to do, but some of us do not agree. Liberals will grab more power on any pretext or no pretext at all.

I think the answer to your

I think the answer to your question might be found in a listing of 'donations' to the venal congress made by organized religious groups.

Nobody said the Preamble

Nobody said the Preamble grants power to the Congress but it has been referred to as the guiding spirit of the Constitution. Nor did I misquote Section 8 of Article I since I was not even referring to it. I was only pointing out that the Constitution, in the pursuit of promoting the general welfare of the people does not lay out specific laws or policies. The point is simple: the founders gave us an instrument so that the representative body can legislate the laws that it feels promotes the general welfare of the people. This is what the health care debate is about when you boil it down. The argument you use - Union v People - is a false dichotomy and settled by the Civil War. As to the charge that for liberals "the Constitution has no meaning and allows the government to do whatever liberals want the government to do.." is sheer nonsense rooted in conservative ideology and thus has no substance to it at all. What ever the commentator means by a liberal I'll interpret s/he means those of us who believe the Constitution is an organic document where law can and should reflect the changing values and beliefs in society. I'll go further to suggest that his/her idea of conservative views of the Constitution is that they know the minds of the framers and thus the intent of the framers. Amazing, really. That there are those who believe the framers minds and intent are so clear that they can be discernible two hundred and twenty years later. In some cases, conservatives are right: the framers thought of a slave as 3/5 a person for census purposes only. Do you think the framers saw the end of slavery in this country back in 1789? If you know their minds, show me the evidence. Women having the right to vote? The conservatives always amaze me with their ability to cordon off their own grabs for power through the ideological purity of their lenses. Thus, separation of church and state is somehow questioned by conservatives as not the intent of the framers and indeed because those illustrious men were for the most part of the Christian faith, put "God" on our money and swear oaths on the Bible, that means they really did not mean what was put in the First amendment. In other words, that is open to interpretation. Can't have it both ways. All I can say is that health care is what the majority of the people want, it is in the best interest of the majority of the people, and their elected representatives have the power to make policy as they have had for 220 years. And religious beliefs be damned.

The Effing Catholic

The Effing Catholic Church??? Memo to the women hating bishops, the winger-dinger bats in the House, the fundies and the Authoritarians, and the spinelss, craven rest: Fu#k off!