I get the feeling that the anti-choice Democrats who initially followed Bart Stupak’s lead are getting a little panicky that they’ve talked themselves into a corner. They are, after all, Democrats, and they don’t want to look at that roll call on health care for the rest of their lives with their votes on the wrong side. They thought they could force the Stupak language into the final bill and make the bishops happy, but now they are beginning to wonder whether the bill might pass without them. It seems to me that they are looking for some kind of face-saving move that will allow them to flip-flop back to being in favor of the bill. As for Pelosi, she’s not offering much in the face-saving department:
The California Democrat says the legislation leaves intact the existing curbs on federal payments for the procedure. She told reporters Friday that for lawmakers who favor restricting abortion funding and overhauling the health care system: “This is it.”
Some abortion foes who voted for an earlier version of the bill are threatening to vote “no” Sunday because they say the current version’s abortion restrictions are too lax.
Pelosi said, “When we bring the bill to the floor, we will have a significant victory for the American people.”
I think she’s pissed off that she had to appease these jerks in the first place, and she’s not in a great mood about the Nelson language either. Having to suffer fools in her own caucus who don’t understand that the bill is already a setback for reproductive freedoms (albeit, without being draconian about it) has got to be getting on her last nerve.
Here’s a question I have. The bishops supposedly support universal health care but oppose this bill because it isn’t anti-choice enough. But that’s really a bunk argument, so I am wondering what their primary motivation is. Is it that they want to use this unique opportunity to wreck the practice of insurance companies offering abortion coverage? Or is it that they simply don’t want the pro-choice Democrats to get a giant win that will make it harder for the anti-choice Republicans to regain power? In other words, just how devious are they?
The Bishops seem to be into exerting their political power (at the encouragement of the Pope). There is no other explanation for why no other violation of Catholic social doctrine means barring from communion (essentially excommunication). And why this threat applies only to Democratic politicians.
hcr is coinciding with the German priest sex abuse case, which the current Pope oversaw in the 80’s. Is it, best defense is a good offense strategy?
Anything that increases the chances of a GOP president getting back into the White House where he or she can appoint the judge that finally kills Roe or that makes a Senate less able to filibuster such an appointment, is fine with them.
The bishops have soft-pedaled their opposition to the Iraq war, to torture as a tool of state policy, to the death penalty, to immiseration of an increasingly large part of their own flock solely to that end. In the 70’s and ’80’s you heard from them on those issues, and Central America — but now they’re just another GOP pressure group.
Pax Christi and others are out there doing what the bishops are supposed to do and they can’t get the local ordinaries to buy them so much as a postage meter or letterhead.
I’ve been wondering as well. Apparently their opposition to this wording is fairly old, so they may have made the decision when they thought it was safe and now feel stuck.
You know they must be furious with the nuns – they have no more respect for the nuns than Stupak does. 🙂
It’s mutual. And not a recent phenomenon, either.
My (Jewish) wife works for the Sisters of Mercy, most of whom are in the social-services trenches daily, working with the people mentioned in Matthew 25:35ff, and they are unprintable on the topic of the local bishop, and have been for years.
Religion is all about power. Look at how the Bishops have treated John Kerry & Patrick Kennedy; ostracism or the threat of ostracism has for generations been the churchs’ most powerful societal threat.
“Choice” is not a word they want fostered, and certainly a healthy woman who might make a choice threatens their power.
As always, ‘power’ is an instant gratification kind of word typical of the Bishop boys’ club, as opposed to ‘strength’ which embraces tolerance from both genders.
One thing this debate has shown me is that male voices in favor of choice are not being loud enough. Oh, sure, we’re there supporting a woman’s right to choose, but women are overwhelmingly there on the front-lines, not backing down. A lot of men are just afraid of being outspoken of their support for a woman to choose. That needs to change. We men need to be loud and roar.
It’s shown me we have too many pro-life Dems in Congress. I had no idea. I’ll seriously look at position on choice before supporting Dems going forward.
The bishops are Republicans to a man. How many Congressional Republican votes will this bill get? None.
So why would anybody think other Republicans would support it?
nalbar
What the bishops want is as clear as hell: the repugnants back in the driver’s seat. The RC clergy is one of the most conservative, reactionary forces in the US (and elsewhere), always has been and always will be. Just look how Mr. Ratzinger covered up the pedophile scandals years ago when he had the responsibiilty to deal with the matter.
if HCR passes, if you know a nun, or have a local Catholic church in your neighborhood, bake or buy a couple of pies,or anything, and take it up to the church to thank the local nuns for speaking out. it was the NUNS, along with Stupak’s insulting of them, that has rubbed folks the wrong way.
the nuns and other Catholic Groups speaking up has marginalized the Bishops.
I can’t get over the fucking nerve of these drones. As the Pope tries to spin the growing revelations about its child molesters in North America, Italy, Ireland, Germany, and whatever makes up the submerged part of the iceberg, they actually set themselves as some kind of authority on morals!! What the fuck. Only a fool would believe that a single one of them didn’t quietly enable the perves to get away with child rape, and yet they dare to deny communion to politicians who defy their “moral teachings”??? They should be on their knees thanking their bent god that they’re not in the slammer or hanging from lamp posts somewhere.
Preferably hanging … and by their gonads.