Catholics Politicize Health Care—Soon Everybody Else Will Join In Too

|

I opened my Washington Post (yes, I still get a physical newspaper delivered) this morning to find this ad from Catholics for Choice:

I am not here endorsing any of the views expressed in the ad one way or the other. My point is that the ad shows how health care will become thoroughly politicized as the federal government takes over more and more of it. If the Democratic health care reform bills are adopted, these kinds of battles over what health care citizens may have will become ever more frequent and rancorous. On the other hand, markets allow people to purchase services that conform to their values. Wouldn't it be better to allow people to buy health insurance that fits with their personal values?

Advertisement

NEXT: You Can Profit from the Coming Freebooting Expedition

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The picture doesn’t come up for me.

    YMMV

    1. Click on the link – it’s a PDF file. You can puke at the end.

      1. No, I got that. Just letting Ron know what ever pic he was putting up didn’t work.

      2. My work internet filters out that site. Slow news day + slow work day = very bored worker.

  2. Catholics for Choice [sic] seeks to shape and advance sexual and reproductive ethics that are based
    on justice, reflect a commitment to women’s well-being and respect and affirm the capacity of
    women and men to make moral decisions about their lives.

    Ergo, they are NOT catholics.

    1. Yeah no kidding. Catholics for choice is like Marxists for Free Markets. If you don’t agree with the Pope on things, that is your choice. Lots of people do. They are generally called Protestants.

      1. He’s not called the “Grand Primate” for nothing. Don’t you know he’s a better monkey than you?

      2. Srsly. There’s a church called “The Episcopalians”. The Christian math for them is Catholic – Pope = Episcopalians. Everything else is pretty much the same. They even serve booze and those little hors d’oevres at the end of the service, too.

      3. I understand your point, but I don’t think you appreciate the psychology of church affiliation. As a non-Catholic, I can understand why someone raised on Catholic liturgy and rites might be reluctant to leave in spite of philosophical differences with the Vatican. Worship is at least as much about having a subjective spiritual experience as about expressing an ethical point of view.

        1. Then there’s the social aspect. For many people, the local church is their moose/elk club. You might think the grand poobah is an ignorant jerk, but that doesn’t mean you don’t enjoy being a member.

        2. It’s also an uncomfortableness with top down institutions. As democracy in almost everything has slowly trickled into our society, people are less interested in things they can’t have a say in (even if it’s an illusion.)

          What’s weird about America, that unlike most of the 1st world–where religion has retreated into just an aspect of culture, or a simple quiet atheism has set in–American Catholics seem to want to stick with the Church, but make it their own.

          I don’t have a dog in the fight, but a population fighting to change their religion seems like it should be heartening to believers over just watching people slow walk away.

    2. My father used to say, at least Martin Luther knew when to leave.

  3. Wouldn’t it be better to allow people to buy health insurance that fits with their personal values?

    No, how could we?? That’s like having a free market, and a free market is tooo pass?. Just ask Howard Dean…

  4. Groups like “Catholics for Choice” politicize the Catholic Church, so it’s not a surprise that they are trying to latch on to a political issue to bring attention to themselves.

    1. Yes, because the Catholic Church does everything it can to stay out of politics.

      1. “Father, uh, having sex with boys is part of the Catholic priest’s way of life.”

        1. FORGET ABOUT THE GELGAMEKS?!?!?!?!?

          1. The Gelgamek vagina is three feet wide and filled with razor-sharp teeth. Do you really expect us to have sex with them?!

            1. Let’s just forget about the Gelgameks for now.

              1. Goddamnit I fucked that up.

                Substitute: “O great Queen Spider, we seek a-your guidance.

  5. The whole issue is watching a zombie wrestling a shark. While in the water, I don’t particularly want either of them to win.

    Although, it should give liberals pause about politicizing health care. But it won’t. Because they just aren’t that bright.

    1. I still don’t understand why I only became aware of that movie a few months ago. I was so embarrassed when I first found out that I sent my G.O.R.E. membership card back to the office.

    2. If liberals actually believed in privacy and getting the “government out of my body and healthcare decisions”, they would be for ending the drug war and would object to things like banning transfats rather than being behind them.

      I honestly don’t get the liberal obsession with abortion. They clearly don’t value personal privacy and freedom. So their support of abortion rights can’t be for that reason. In the end, I think it is because they just like to object to anything religious people support.

      1. That, plus killing things is fun!

      2. “Your comment does not appear to be written in an English script. Please comment in English.”

        Fuck you, you goddam English only bastards. Really. WTF??? Turn this fucked up feature OFF

        1. Damnit. You have just confirmed what every liberal already knows about Libertarians. They are the RACIST!

      3. John, honestly, you profoundly “don’t get” a lot of things.

        Try, just for a moment, to imagine that people might support access to abortion because they want…access to abortion.

        That people like you oppose such access is a hindrance to them, but not their core motivation for their position.

        Feminists are a core constituency of the liberal movement and access to abortion is the feminists’ litmus test.

      4. Um seems to me the people most “obsessed” with abortion are the mostly old white men who make up movement conservatism in this country. Banning abortion inevitably results in more hardship, suffering, and death for women. Liberals just care about women, while conservatives care about using fetuses to advance their personal political agenda.

        1. Um seems to me the people most “obsessed” with abortion are the mostly old white men who make up movement conservatism in this country. Banning abortion inevitably results in more hardship, suffering, and death for women. Liberals just care about women, while conservatives care about using fetuses to advance their personal political agenda.

          Would not pro-lifers claim that abortion causes hardship for the fetus?

        2. I really love this comment. It so perfectly exemplifies Tony’s world view. Instead of being able to create or rebut logical arguments, Tony can only make assumptions about the intentions of his opponents.

          “Liberals just care about women…”

          Translation: Tony has a pure heart and is nobly wanting only the best and most altruistic things for all.

          Whereas, conservatives’ intellectual position on all topics is merely cynical and they’re just using dead babies for some mysterious and as yet unnamed political agenda.

          What would that agenda be, I wonder? Controlling women’s bodies?

          It couldn’t, of course, be that they honestly believe that a fetus is a fully-fledged human being who deserves the same rights as born human beings… As we all know the question of “where life begins” is settled for all time.

          Oh wait… No it isn’t.

          (That question, incidentally, is precisely why state force shouldn’t ever be involved in abortion issues)

          I have a hypothesis though: My experience suggests that it is in fact, TONY, who is the cynical one and would prefer to use Abortion, or any of a number of other issues to get another “jab” in at what he considers his “enemy” (Team Red), and that in fact he doesn’t care about women any more or less than anyone else. Thus he is merely projecting.

    3. “The whole issue is watching a zombie wrestling a shark. While in the water, I don’t particularly want either of them to win.”

      Up top! 🙂

  6. SugarFree: Does the image come up now? It shows up for me. Let me know.

    1. No. It still displays the google.com/mail address thread.

      Firefox 3.5.5 on Windows XP.

      1. Windows XP?!? What are you, some kind of Luddite?

        1. You should have seen how hard it was for me to find a web browser for this Commodore 64.

          1. “Look at how much work I’m getting done. Listen to that cassette tape go!”

          2. There actually is a web browser for the Commodore 64:

            http://www.armory.com/~spectre/cwi/hl/

            Heck, here’s somebody using a C-64 as a web server:

            http://58.6.118.18/

            1. Wow, there really is no finite limit on geekiness, is there?

    2. I get an image, but it’s a blank box with the text of a URL at the top. Since it’s an image, I can’t copy the URL text and paste it; it’s long, but (hmm, trying not to make a clickable link here) begins with http: and continues //mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik;=

      1. “I get an image, but it’s a blank box with the text of a URL at the top.”

        im?age (im?ij)
        noun 1. an imitation or representation of a person or thing, drawn, painted, photographed, etc.; esp., a statue

        “I get an image, but it’s a blank box with the text of a URL at the top.”

        I am for not to understanding you.

        1. Sorry — I meant an image in the technical web-browser sense. In this case the thing “painted” was the text of a URL in the top fraction of an otherwise blank rectangle.

          This is of course now moot as Ron has fixed the entry.

    3. It did for me, Ron. Thanks!

      1. Working for me, too.

  7. That pic link is to an image in your gmail box, science guy.

    RELEASE THE DATA

    1. GG denier: Oops. Fixed. :”>

  8. Ron~ It won’t upload for me still, at least.

  9. Such conflicts have been brewing for a long time. From here:

    But how would this legislation be seen from the perspective of the “liberal” perversion of the First Amendment? Eight days later, Newsday printed this letter:

    The Rev. William Murphy charges that the state Senate’s Women’s Wellness Act interferes with the freedom of religion.

    But this misrepresents the bill, which simply requires that employers include contraception and other essential women’s health care services in their comprehensive health plans….

    In fact, the bill restores the separation of church and state in the insurance market. It has become common practice for employers and insurance companies that claim a religious affiliation to deny insurance coverage for basic health care services on religious grounds, even when most of their customers and employees are not of the faith. When a religious institution hires and serves the public primarily, it should play by the public rules. Employees of many faiths who work for religious charities, for example, and serve the public should not have their employers’ religion dictate their health benefits.

    The Senate bill properly respects free exercise of religion. It also recognizes that the Constitution will not tolerate the state’s establishment of religion — a principle Murphy fails to appreciate.

    Observe what is necessary to bring a minimum of coherence to the argument: an equivocation between “the public primarily” — the private citizens who work for or patronize these private institutions — and “the public rules” — the dictates that government wants to force upon these private parties. The bill “restores the separation of church and state in the insurance market” only in the sense that when the “State” invades that market, the “Church” must go — state imperialism in practice. Observe also the real motive: the dubious insulation of employees from what Leftism labels the “economic power” of employers. In practical terms, prospective employees who don’t like the benefits package offered by a religious employer will flock to his secular competitors — something that millions of people do every day. (Conversely, there are many religious “customers and employees” who very much want a company that reflects their values — something that “progressives” have no problem understanding when it involves their values.) Finally, observe the fundamental principle: Socialist imperatives supersede civil liberties — d?j? vu encore une fois.

    Oh, who wrote it? Donna Lieberman. And? The editor’s note says that she “is executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union” — officially. Unofficially, she’s just another mole of the Anti-Religious Left.

    1. That makes me want to read the rest of the letter, just to make sure that I am not misunderstanding her. Is she really defining “state” to include private employers? Weird. That isn’t separation of church and state — it’s separation of church and employer, even where the employer is a church (or church-affiliated institution).

  10. the America people

    ? …are the luckiest people in the wooorrrld. ?

    Catholics for Choice need to choose a new proofreader.

    1. There goes the Canada people, hatin’ on us USians again.

      1. Who are these “Canada people” you speak of?

        1. 11% of their doctors flee here for some measure of freedom. You’ll meet one eventually.

            1. Liberty = Property
              Think about it

              1. Canadians move here for the cash or weather. I don’t ever remember not being free but it was fucking cold.

                1. 22,336 Canadians moved here in 2008. That’s 0.6% of the population, yet 11% of medical graduates move here.

                  Can’t possibly have anything to socialized medicine, right?

                  http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/as…..b_2008.pdf

                  1. Let me make this simple: Once upon a time medicine was a calling. Now you are in it for the cash. We move here to make more and the only interesting info about the 11% is that their education was subsidized by Canadian taxpayers.

                    1. Amendment: We also move here for the golf courses but I prefer tennis.

                    2. Anti-capitalist claptrap. Medicine is a job, like any other.

                      But I get what you are saying about the taxpayers funding their education. You think doctors should be chattel to the government.

                    3. I love money (ask my husband) but I think I should get a discount from the 11% because “public funding of ANYTHING is theft”.

                    4. You really should, since you had to pay for it and all, but alas – governments aren’t in that business… they’re only really in the business of taking from you, skimming off the top and paying someone else whether you want them to or not.

                      But I have to side with SF here. All jobs are jobs. A “calling” is something personal that only you can really ascribe to your occupation. Don’t put doctors on some kind of mythical pedestal – it’s just a job that people can do. Throughout history – and as far as I’m aware, in all cultures – doctors have held high positions in society both in payment and social respect.

                    5. Sean,I know some who still consider it a calling. “All jobs are jobs”. Interesting that you would consider composing a job. I would consider it art.

        2. Like the pod people, but with a thin, sticky film of maple syrup.

          1. Stop with the dirty talk, already. I’ve told you I’m married!

            1. Trumpy, NO!

    2. They forgot a comma. THE America, people!

  11. A friend keeps sending me emails from a Catholic site that demands that Congress exclude abortion coverage from any plan, but also demands universal healthcare. There is this idea (not only from Catholics) that we should give the government a lot more power, with the expectation that we’d be able to control how they wield that power. Too damn many people trust the government these days, and it’s already biting us in the ass.

    1. Big government Christians are some of the most amazingly stupid people on earth. Yeah, lets give the government more power. There is no danger they will ever do anything malevolent with it or seek to replace God with the State. That has never happened before.

      1. Alas, too many Christians don’t grasp that the more you render unto Caesar the less you can render unto God.

      2. Agreed. The idea that a religious group can partner with a non-religious group (government) and get everything their way is insane. The Amish have it right. They just practice their religion the way they want, and ask only to be left the fuck alone. Of course, that will change once are all forced to buy insurance.

        1. “The Amish have it right. They just practice their religion the way they want, and ask only to be left the fuck alone.”

          Not exactly. They use electricity in their milking barns to run their electric milking machines in order to comply with government regulations. If they didn’t, they could only sell their milk to the likes of Purina.

    2. A friend keeps sending me emails from a Catholic site that demands that Congress exclude abortion coverage from any plan, but also demands universal healthcare. There is this idea (not only from Catholics) that we should give the government a lot more power, with the expectation that we’d be able to control how they wield that power. Too damn many people trust the government these days, and it’s already biting us in the ass.

      That has been the Catholic position on health care policy for at least the past half-century. (I am aware that dozens of dead babies were buried in convents and monsteries in Spain in the first half of the twentieth century, but that practice had been discontinued, for as far as I know.)

  12. By the way Ron, it comes up in IE but not Firefox for me.

  13. I hate to hijack this thread with an abortion comment, but anyway:

    ‘The whole issue is watching a zombie wrestling a shark. While in the water, I don’t particularly want either of them to win.’

    I’m not sure whether the Catholic Church is the shark or the zombie in this scenario, but I suppose I’ll go with shark – if the fight is ‘in the water,’ then the shark is in its element and I wish to identify with it.*

    And libertarians tend to be on the same side as the shark in these sorts of disputes – that is, disputes over government-paid or government-assisted abortion. When a Libertarian Party blog denounced Joseph Biden, the first item on a list of bad things he did involved his support of federal funding for elective abortions.

    Many Libertarians** specifically single out abortion as a concrete example of something the government should not support.

    Like it or not, you guys should be rooting for the shark.

    * But feel free to come up with an oh-so-clever joke comparing Christ to a zombie. And don’t worry that I spoiled the joke for you.

    **With the usual disclaimers about diversity within the libertarian movement – there is the famous atheist-versus-agnostic battle, anarchist-versus-minarchist, and even prolife versus pro-abortion. But even the pro-abortion libertarians oppose government subsidies to the abortion industry.

    1. Libertarians and small-l libertarians

    2. With the blood drinking, I think vampire works better. And zombies don’t really want you to eat their flesh.

    3. Shark is way cooler.

      ‘Just when you thought it was safe to promote the culture of death . . .’

    4. It’s really disappointing whenever a libertarian confuses that point (or any application of the right to liberty), though. I think, “Aw, come on! You’re supposed to be better than this! You’re a libertarian!” It’s so sad when that happens.

  14. But feel free to come up with an oh-so-clever joke comparing Christ to a zombie. And don’t worry that I spoiled the joke for you.

    Already been done. Many times.

  15. Many, many times.

  16. Re: “rape & incest”

    I’m not sure why it’s important to have an exception to abortion restrictions for incest. If it was consensual incest, why should the resulting pregnancy be any more exempt from abortion restrictions than any other pregnancy? And if it wasn’t consensual incest, then it was rape, which makes the “rape and incest” phrase redundant.

    1. It’s a nuance lost on a lot of people, even people around here who should be sensitive to the issue of contest.

      You’re right, but it’s really for clarification purposes.

  17. AK,

    With the ‘rape and incest’ slogan, pro-aborts want to use the gross-out factor to obscure the humanity of the innocent unborn child. Logic isn’t the point. If they were into logic, then why not call for the death penalty for the guilty rapist, rather than for the rapist’s innocent child?

    Yet the same Supreme Court which says that elective abortion is a constitutional right even absent rape or incest, insists that executing rapists would be “cruel and unusual.”

    1. Terms like “pro-aborts” show that you are incapable of having a rational conversation on this subject. This is why most people groan when you start in on your hobby-horse.

      The issue is about abortion being legal or illegal.

      The handful of people who think elective abortion is a form of entertainment or sacrament is vast smaller than the religious “pro-life” people who murder abortion providers, cheer the murder of abortion providers, or fantasize about murdering abortion providers.

      You want abortion to be illegal. I don’t want it to be. Where is the problem in these descriptions beyond your need to demonize your opponents?

      1. Sugarfree,

        We can debate the ethics of having people that do not agree with abortion, BE COMPELLED TO PAY at the point of a Congressional-held gun for abortions.

        1. Max wants abortion to be illegal. With that, he has already implicitly stated that he disagrees with publicly-funded abortion. His little “pro-abortion” fantasy has nothing to do with the subject at hand. So don’t call me out as the one off-topic.

          The legality of abortion and the public-funding of it are two different subjects. I’m fine not mixing the two.

          1. I can say I do not agree with abortion based on my libertarian principles of self-ownership (a human fetus is a living individual; the fact that he’s attached to his mother is an evolutionary happenstance, not the fault of the fetus.)

            A woman has every right not to seek reproduction, in which case she can simply not have sex or use contraception. Those are my positions; they do not necessarily ahve to become policy nor would I pressume to know better than the rest of manking to have it imposed on all. I simply live by those principles and so does my wife.

            However, public funding of ANYTHING is theft; it is taking earned income by force or coercion from productive people to give it to another individual. That’s THEFT. So public funding of abortions is THEFT. Second, taking money at gunpoint to pay for something the victim (called with a sick and perverse sense of humor a “taxpayer”) finds morally reprehensible or unethical, be it abortions or be it military invasions, that is IMMORAL and UNETHICAL in itself. And THAT position should be POLICY, because LAW cannot be legislated that creates ETHICAL or MORAL pitfalls. You cannot use LAW to justify an immoral or unethical act. Period.

            1. It might be best to find someone who disagrees with you to ALL-CAP at.

              But… and this is a big one… I don’t think that people who want abortion to be illegal have a special or stronger objection to redistributional theft because it is based on a religious belief.

              I have a whole host of things I ethically object to being paid for by redistributional theft. It’s a bit po-faced for the religious to think the light bulb going off over their head hasn’t been shining over mine for years.

              1. Re: Sugarfree,

                I don’t think that people who want abortion to be illegal have a special or stronger objection to redistributional theft because it is based on a religious belief.

                Agreed – there are too many statists who are also religious.

                That’s why I stopped being religious and stuck to Principles: the Non Agression principle, the Golden Rule, the self-ownership principle, etc.

                1. “””I can say I do not agree with abortion based on my libertarian principles of self-ownership (a human fetus is a living individual; the fact that he’s attached to his mother is an evolutionary happenstance, not the fault of the fetus.)””

                  Evolutionary happenstance in this case says the fetus is not an individual.

                  People that support abortion don’t require you to get one, people who are against it require you do not.

                  People who support an abortion ban support greater government control over the individual. Their claim is that the fetus needs government representation over the parents. It’s the who speaks for the fetus bullshit. If I created a list for who gets to speak on behalf of the fetus, the government would be last, if on it at all.

                  Freedom is about the ability to choose. No doctor should be made to perform them anymore that a doctor should be forbidden to perform them.

            2. “A woman has every right not to seek reproduction, in which case she can simply not have sex or use contraception”

              How does that option work for rape?

              1. All women should carry guns.

              2. There are several emergency contraception options such as the morning-after pill and Mifepristone. Both strike me as being preferable to a surgical abortion. They are safer for the woman and cheaper too.

            3. Under no human tradition is a fetus considered a full person with full access to individual rights. This idea just started popping up in the 20th century by religious crackpots and the political party they controlled.

              1. Not full access. Just access to life (freedom from murder) and freedom from being maimed.

                Another couple of things that may have helped that idea of the fetus as a person to develop also popped up in the 20th century — advances in imaging technology and Roe v. Wade itself (and other challenges to abortion laws), which gave people a reason to think about (and reach conclusions about) what a fetus is. It isn’t all about “religious crackpots and the political party they controlled.”

              2. It came with a better scientific understanding of the process of pregnancy.

      2. Sug, I’ve started ONLY using the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion to discuss the issue. Cuts right through the bullshit, and pisses off partisans on both sides.

      3. I don’t know about incapable. It is unfair to some pro-choice people (possibly including you) when the “pro-abortion” label is used interchangeably with “pro-choice.” I think that those people to whom the “pro-abortion” label can be fairly applied are just a subset of pro-choice people. However, I think that it is actually a fairly large subset.

        The kind of pro-abortion person I have in mind is different from the kind that you described (in that they do not think of elective abortion as a form of entertainment or a sacrament). The kind that you described is, as you pointed out, very rare. The pro-abortion people of which I’m thinking have no belief that pregnancies should, as a general rule, end in abortion. They do, however, believe very strongly that abortion is a valuable and necessary procedure, and they think it is a tragedy or injustice if someone who wants to have an abortion cannot pay for it.

        They are pro-abortion in the sense that we are both (presumably) pro-heart transplant: glad that it exists but not in favor of performing it just because the opportunity came along.

        I do not know whether Mad Max had only these “pro-abortion” people in mind, though, so my comment might actually be completely irrelevant.

        1. Insults are relative to the speaker and the receiver. In that Mad Max was mocking the idea that a woman who has been raped should be allowed to have a abortion, his use of “pro-aborts” is nothing but snide.

          And the “pro-abortion” position you describe is also skewed with a “anti-legal-abortion” viewpoint. A much fairer description of that position is “pro-choice.” Very, very few “pro-choice” people think “abortion is awesome!” they merely advocate against the government making it a non-option for a women with an unwanted pregnancy.

          No one likes to be called “anti-choice,” but since legal abortion is not forced on anyone, being against it is being against a woman having the choice to have one.

          As for “pro-life” only people honest with them selves to the point they don’t ever want to see anyone dead can been consistently labeled that way. Max has made apologies on this board before for the murderers of abortion providers, as well as repeatedly suggestions that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same thing, and that secret homo priests were the only molesters in the myriad scandals.

          He’s a hateful bigot and unreliable and biased on these subjects.

    2. With the ‘rape and incest’ slogan, pro-aborts want to use the gross-out factor to obscure the humanity of the innocent unborn child. Logic isn’t the point. If they were into logic, then why not call for the death penalty for the guilty rapist, rather than for the rapist’s innocent child?

      Killing a rape child in utero is no different ethically than killing children (conceived by rape or other means) in the process of bombing a city where enemy soldiers are garrisoned (Dresden, Hiroshima).

      In both cases are foreign invaders being killed, and killing foreign invaders have always passed the ethical test for homicide.

  18. I am not here endorsing any of the views expressed in the ad one way or the other. My point is that the ad shows how health care will has become thoroughly politicized as the federal government takes over more and more of it.

    Fixed.

  19. See? I didn’t spoil the zombie jokes! They’re as funny as they ever were!

  20. pro-abortion

    Someone should market boutique abortions as Probortion?. All our practitioners are also massage and aromatherapy professionals! When it’s time to terminate, why not rejuvenate?

    1. I think I love you.

  21. Re: Brian Sorgatz,

    As a non-Catholic, I can understand why someone raised on Catholic liturgy and rites might be reluctant to leave in spite of philosophical differences with the Vatican.

    I am an agnostic, raised Catholic. I can say that it is one thing to be not in agreement with some doctrine as espoused by the Catholic Church, and way another to actively seek a policy that affects the rest of the Catholics directly – in this case, the funding of abortions with taxpayer money.

    This is why I said that the “Catholics for Choice” association is NOT made of Catholics, but of leftist cranks. And why do I say they are cranks? Because of the hyperbole in their assertions in their ad.

    1. I am also a collapsed Catholic but I disagree with your characterization of Catholics for Choice. The sacraments of baptism and confirmation make them Catholics by definition. Their belief that Christ is okay with abortion makes them apostates. If the Church was not so deathly afraid of losing members it would excommunicate them, lock stock and barrel.

      1. They are excommunicated.
        http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/Abortio2.htm

        [quote]Conspirators who incur the excommunication can be defined as those who make access to the abortion possible. This certainly includes doctors and nurses who actually do it, husbands, family and others whose counsel and encouragement made it morally possible for the woman, and those whose direct practical support made it possible (financially, driving to the clinic etc.).[/quote]

        1. Eh, fucked the quote.

        2. They are excommunicated.

          I am speaking more of the members of Catholics for Choice; I doubt there are many Catholic abortionists.

          those whose direct practical support made it possible

          I hope Nancy Pelosi and the Kennedys don’t plan on seeing heaven.

        3. So if a catholic was against abortions, but didn’t want any government involvement in prohibiting it, thereby making access to abortions possible, they could be excommunicated? That would be me, if I was catholic.

          1. So if a catholic was against abortions, but didn’t want any government involvement in prohibiting it, thereby making access to abortions possible, they could be excommunicated?

            I don’t know that being pro-choice but doing nothing about it would generate latae sententiae excommunication but I don’t see how you can be pro-choice and in a state of grace in the eyes of the church. That renders communion and last rites meaningless in the eyes of the Church.

          2. So if a catholic was against abortions, but didn’t want any government involvement in prohibiting it, thereby making access to abortions possible, they could be excommunicated? That would be me, if I was catholic.

            Catholic teaching prohibits the worship of statues.

            If a Catholic objects to laws that make worshipping statues a capital crime, is that grounds for excommunication?

      2. Re: swillfredo pareto,

        If the Church was not so deathly afraid of losing members it would excommunicate them, lock stock and barrel.

        Actually, they ARE losing members because of a lack of consistency. If they excommunicated these cranks, it would at least convince the faithful that the Church means what it says.

        Remember that the Anglican church here in the US is losing members because of their politically-correct decisions to include gays and lesbians. This does not show consistency, even if I agree gays and lesbians have a right to join a church that will let them. The fact is, people also have a right NOT to continue joining an organization that changes its mind radically on an important issue, at least important to its members.

    2. “Catholics for Choice” association is NOT made of Catholics, but of leftist cranks. Hmm, I wonder who would give them monetary donations?

  22. That religious people are being to doubt the wisdom of statism is a great thing. They can get to feel what it was like for the rest of us when they used the power of government against us for their own ends.

    Everyone loves democracy when it’s fucking the other guy.

    1. Everyone loves democracy when it’s fucking the other guy.

      Like a strap-on! You’d know all about that, Nutra-bottom.

      1. If he’s a bottom then he’d love the strap-on when it was doing him, no?

        You got to think your disses through, Epi.

        1. He’s too busy fantasizing about sodomizing me.

  23. Fuck the Catholics and their church organized crime syndicate.

    Fuck them, one and all.

    1. “Fuck the Catholics and their church organized crime syndicate.” I wish but I have never received a cut of the take.

      1. Me, neither.

        They’re holding out on us!

        Either they give me my cut, or I reveal the terrible truth about the Merovingians, the Holy Grail, and the secret formula for Coke.

  24. supposed to be church

    ah, well

  25. Actually, this has a strong parallel with the gay marriage debate.

    If the government will not make every two-person “marriage” into a civil union and return marriage to a purely religious ceremony granted by the policy of a given church (or abolish the economic contract of marriage all together), then equal protection wins out in my mind. If you want marriage to continue to be a government-enforced contract, then it should be extended to all.

    If the government is going to completely take over health care, and ban reproductive services due to religious sympathies, then it’s bullshit and the feminist are right and health care is just a stalking horse for making abortion illegal or unobtainable.

    Free markets in health insurance and health costs takes care of the whole issue.

    1. I agree with you there, but the government is not exactly proposing to completely take over health care. If the Dems were actually proposing a single-payer health system like Canada’s and then refusing to fun abortions, they would be making it unobtainable as you say. But as things stand, the current bill will reduce access to abortion for a small minority of women.

      1. No, I agree with you on that.

        But at the same time, I’m in the camp that believes that this shitty bill is just a precursor to single-payer/socialized medicine. The Dems are not as stupid as some people want to make them out to be. They want this mandate/half-public option/cost control boondoggle to wreck the medical system even further.

        No matter who bad it is, they can always say it was the 50/40/10/5/1% of the market they didn’t take over that is causing all the problems. And once they have it all… no government program really ever goes away.

    2. The problem, Sugar, is that the government isn’t exactly giving churches the option of taking marriage back.

      The government usurped the power to marry people from the churches a long time ago while leaving the nature of it essentially unchanged, now that they want to completely change it; the religious are understandably upset at losing control over the way they “free[ly] exercise” their religion.

      1. I agree with that. But I was getting more at the side-step many take that “I support civil unions for all” somehow clears up the debate. Yes, that is the libertarian solution. But since 99% of people against gay marriage don’t think that way–i.e. they want the government to define marriage as man-woman and keep the benefits of marriage for themselves–then civil unions is not what the argument is really about.

        My problem is they want to legally codify (or remain codified) something they also want to define as religious. It goes back to them whining about not being able to use the power of the state to enforce their beliefs. They invited the dog in the house and are now complaining it’s pissing wherever it wants.

        Marriages for everyone or no one, the middle path is just bigotry.

        1. I disagree that the religious ever sought to have marriage codified that way – it’s merely an anachronistic occurrence from the days when only Christian men had legally protected property and the protection of law in general – it was just an implicit assumption that he would marry a certain type of person and that would have certain assumed effects.

          As far as I know, “marriage” itself is nowhere defined, maybe in a very obscure case or two, but it is still an ages-old assumption of common law that is probably undefinable for legal purposes at this point, like ‘proprietor’ or ‘bond.’

          1. But see, when the religious controlled everything, they made this supposedly religious ceremony into law. And the law has to be applied to everyone equally for any sort of fairness to creep in. (If they have no interest in fairness, just say so and can take their lumps.)

            All I’m saying is don’t get all butthurt when your own weapons get used against you.

            (Not you you, of course.)

          2. “As far as I know, “marriage” itself is nowhere defined, maybe in a very obscure case or two, but it is still an ages-old assumption of common law that is probably undefinable for legal purposes at this point, like ‘proprietor’ or ‘bond.'”

            Matthew 19: 3-9

            3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

            4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

            5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

            6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

            7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

            8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

            9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

            1. When are dickheads going to realize that the bible isn’t part of the Constitution?

  26. “Wouldn’t it be better to allow people to buy health insurance that fits with their personal values? ”

    Nope. If you do it on your own I can’t stick a gun to your head and run your life for you. After all, I’m from the Government and I know FAR BETTER that you what’s right for you. You mustn’t be allowed to make any mistakes – after all, that’s too much booze, too many burgers, too many risky sports, too few approved exercises, etc.

  27. ‘Sug, I’ve started ONLY using the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion to discuss the issue. Cuts right through the bullshit, and pisses off partisans on both sides.’

    I’ve started using ‘pro-abortion’ (‘pro-abort’ for short) to describe anybody who thinks the government should have the same policy toward abortion that my homes region used to have toward slavery – legalizing and recognizing the practice in question and supporting it by law.

    My home region had laws that allowed white people (and free black people, for that matter) to decide for themselves whether to own slaves. If your slave ran away from you, the government would uphold your freedom of choice by recapturing the slave and returning the slave to your control. No white person (or free black person) was *forced* to own a slave – they could be ‘personally antislavery’ if they chose, and refuse to buy or own slaves if it troubled their tender consciences to do so. There was no taxpayer subsidy of slave-dealers (although I’m not counting the tax support of slave patrols and judges).

    I suppose it’s possible that some folks who supported the policies I have described didn’t see themselves as pro-slavery, and bridled at those who applied the term to them. From our modern perspective, however, we feel free calling these folks ‘pro-slavery,’ even if (like Chief Justice Roger Taney) they were ‘personally antislavery’ in the sense of freeing their own slaves. People like Taney certainly didn’t view slavery as ‘a form of entertainment or sacrament,’ but they were still pro-slavery because they put the force of the government behind slaveowners and recognized the legality of their doings.

    Even the most minimal ‘night-watchman’ state will have to take sides on the abortion issue. It will have to decide whether to close down abortion clinics or provide them with the same police protection as legitimate businesses. Even if a government doesn’t pay a cent of direct subsidy to the abortion industry, if abortion is recognized as a ‘legal, legitimate medical procedure’ then abortionists will be entitled to police and judicial protection just like the slave business in the old South.

    I, too, want to cut through the euphemism and say ‘pro-abortion’ where the term applies.

    But there’s pro-abortion and there’s pro-abortion. There are some pro-aborts who actually take their choice rhetoric seriously and try to minimize the government’s involvement in the abortion business. This sort of pro-abortion advocate may well draw the line at direct subsidies, and might be willing to support the Hyde Amendment and the Stupak Amendment.

  28. The funny thing about this is that the USCCB actually supports Obamacare as long as it doesn’t force Catholic hospitals to perform sterilizations and doesn’t use federal funds for abortion.

    The USCCB makes noises about abortion once in a while, but on most political issues they’re extremely liberal.

  29. Tulpa,

    You are correct. I won’t comment on whether the USCCB is doctrinally correct on federalizing health care, but suffice to say that opinions on federalization of health care differ, even among faithful Catholics committed to orthodoxy (free choice versus govt direction, subsidiarity versus letting the central govt handle things, etc).

    But liberal prolifers would *deny* that their prolife position is an exception to their liberal beliefs. There are plenty of liberal prolifers, including key Democrat supporters of the Stupak Amendment, and they would be *offended* at the suggestion that their prolife stance made them any more conservative than they would otherwise be. Instead, liberal, conservative and prolifers (Catholic and non-Catholic) see their prolife stance as in fulfilment of, not in contradiction to, their respective philosophies.

    To the libertarian prolifer, supporting an unborn human being’s right to life is imperative for the same reason that supporting the post-born human being’s right to life is proper: The Lockean right to self-ownership necessarily includes a right to live.

    To the conservative, being prolife is part of upholding human dignity and ordered liberty.

    To the (modern) liberal, protecting the unborn is an instance of caring for the most vulnerable – who could be more vulnerable than a child in the womb (especially since so many unborn children at risk for abortion are ‘poor children of color’).

  30. “Wouldn’t it be better to allow people to buy health insurance that fits with their personal values?” That’s a good sentence. Shouldn’t it apply to Catholics too? The Bishops got involved to prevent legislation that would require Catholic hospitals and medical personnel to perform abortions – contrary to their personal values. P.S. Get real. The entire process leading to this proposed bill was already totally politicized.

  31. When you give the government control over some aspect of life or society you have by definition politicized it. Politics is the process by which government decides to do things. People who use the phrase “politicized” in a negative way generally mean that people they dislike are politicking for an issue they are against, while they themselves politick for the position they favor without batting an eye. It is a phrase for hypocrites.

  32. The latest Irish report on abuse by the church in Ireland mentions, among others, a priest using holy water in an altar bowl to wash the scent of a girl from his hands after assaulting her in a confessional. Another priest assaults a small girl by brutally inserting a crucifix into her vagina and then her back passage. One priest raped a new child every 2 weeks for years. Surely the Church should allow abortion if any of its victims get pregnant as the priests don’t only rape those too young to conceive.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.