WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House is on a collision course with Catholic bishops in an intractable dispute over abortion that could blow up the fragile political coalition behind President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
A top Obama administration official on Thursday praised the new Senate health care bill's attempt to find a compromise on abortion coverage - even as an official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said Sen. Harry Reid's bill is the worst he's seen so far on the divisive issue.
The bishops were instrumental in getting tough anti-abortion language adopted by the House, forcing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to accept restrictions that outraged liberals as the price for passing the Democratic health care bill. Reid, D-Nev., now faces a similar choice: Ultimately, he will need the votes of Democratic senators who oppose abortion to get his bill through the Senate.
So far, Reid has steered the Senate bill in a direction that abortion rights supporters can live with: allowing coverage for abortion in federally subsidized health care plans, provided that beneficiaries' own premiums are used to pay for the procedure. But abortion opponents say his compromise would gut current federal restrictions on abortion funding.
Despite criticism, there were growing indications Reid would prevail on an initial Senate showdown set for Saturday night. He needs a 60-vote majority to advance the bill toward full debate, expected to begin after Thanksgiving and last for weeks. It's during that debate that the battle over abortion will be joined in earnest. Reid will need to clear other 60-vote hurdles before senators cast their final vote on the bill.
At the White House on Thursday, health reform director Nancy Ann DeParle praised Reid's effort to find a compromise on abortion.
"It was carefully worked through by the leader, who cares a lot about making sure this maintains the status quo on abortion policy," DeParle told reporters. Obama has said he wants the bill to remain neutral on abortion, and DeParle said Reid struck just the right balance.
But Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the bishops' conference Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, said Reid's "is actually the worst bill we've seen so far on the life issues."
He called it "completely unacceptable," adding that "to say this reflects current law is ridiculous."
The bill would forbid including abortion coverage as a required medical benefit. However, it would allow a new government insurance plan to cover abortions and let private insurers that receive federal subsidies offer plans that include abortion coverage.
In all cases, the money to pay for abortions would have to come from premiums paid by beneficiaries themselves, kept strictly separate from federal subsidy dollars. Government funds could be used for abortions only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother - reflecting a current law known as the Hyde amendment.
The Hyde amendment restrictions apply to Medicaid, military health care and the federal employee health plan. Many states provide abortion coverage to low-income Medicaid beneficiaries, but they must do so separately with their own funds.
Abortion opponents say Reid's bill circumvents Hyde. For example, they say that any funds a government insurance plan would use to pay for abortion would be federal funds by definition - even if the money comes from premiums paid by beneficiaries.
"All the money the government has starts out being private money," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. "Once the government has them, they're federal funds."
The restrictive language passed by the House would forbid any health plan that receives federal subsidies from paying for abortions, except as allowed by the Hyde amendment. Women would have to purchase separate coverage for abortion services.
Abortion rights supporters say that fencing off government funds from private premiums would achieve the same goal, without forcing women to get special coverage for a legal medical procedure now routinely included in many private health insurance plans.
---
Associated Press Special Correspondent David Espo contributed to this report
[link to apnews.myway.com] One of the most important aspects of conspiracy theories is being able to discern when there isn't one.
Bluebird User ID: 730536 United States 11/20/2009 12:36 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
Yeah, like a real "late term" one on Harry Reid? Except he doesn't have any brains to suck out. One of the most important aspects of conspiracy theories is being able to discern when there isn't one.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 822494 United States 11/20/2009 1:06 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
Doesn't all of Christianity condemn the taking of innocent life?
So why is it always just the Catholic Church that stands up against abortion?
And yet we are daily reviled on this very forum.
Where are the rest of the Christians when it comes to preventing the 5,000 murdered daily in this country?
The silence is deafening.
Quoting: Bluebird
Nothing in the Bible forbids abortion. In fact by Jewish law it wasn't a "nefish" (a person) until it drew its first breath. Abortion existed during Biblical times, in fact it may be the oldest form of surgery known, but neither Jesus nor Paul ever even mentioned it.
Abortion is not a Christian issue. It's a political issue that some Christians try to make a religious issue.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 822494 United States 11/20/2009 1:10 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
BTW, there were debates going on during Jesus time over abortion too, but the arguments were different. Those who opposed it weren't saying the fetus was a "baby," they were arguing it violated Gods command to "be fruitful and multiply." They took the duty to make babies real serious, and saw abortion as contrary to that duty. No one was saying it was murder.
Cyndexia User ID: 798649 United States 11/20/2009 1:14 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
Doesn't all of Christianity condemn the taking of innocent life?
So why is it always just the Catholic Church that stands up against abortion?
And yet we are daily reviled on this very forum.
Where are the rest of the Christians when it comes to preventing the 5,000 murdered daily in this country?
The silence is deafening.
Nothing in the Bible forbids abortion. In fact by Jewish law it wasn't a "nefish" (a person) until it drew its first breath. Abortion existed during Biblical times, in fact it may be the oldest form of surgery known, but neither Jesus nor Paul ever even mentioned it.
Abortion is not a Christian issue. It's a political issue that some Christians try to make a religious issue.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 822494
thou shall not kill ...
Bluebird User ID: 730536 United States 11/20/2009 1:24 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
Doesn't all of Christianity condemn the taking of innocent life?
So why is it always just the Catholic Church that stands up against abortion?
And yet we are daily reviled on this very forum.
Where are the rest of the Christians when it comes to preventing the 5,000 murdered daily in this country?
The silence is deafening.
Nothing in the Bible forbids abortion. In fact by Jewish law it wasn't a "nefish" (a person) until it drew its first breath. Abortion existed during Biblical times, in fact it may be the oldest form of surgery known, but neither Jesus nor Paul ever even mentioned it.
Abortion is not a Christian issue. It's a political issue that some Christians try to make a religious issue.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 822494
What would Jewish law have to do with Christian concepts? Not binding to them.
But with advances in embryology, it should be a moral issue as well as religious one. It's barbaric by any civilized standard. Either all human life is to be protected or none of it is.
And it violates my religion to force me to finance it.
But I was just curious as to where all the other Christians are when it comes to this issue and think they should be just as opposed to this and the Bishops should not be standing up to it all alone very time. One of the most important aspects of conspiracy theories is being able to discern when there isn't one.
Bluebird User ID: 730536 United States 11/20/2009 1:26 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
BTW, there were debates going on during Jesus time over abortion too, but the arguments were different. Those who opposed it weren't saying the fetus was a "baby," they were arguing it violated Gods command to "be fruitful and multiply." They took the duty to make babies real serious, and saw abortion as contrary to that duty. No one was saying it was murder.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 822494
Were you there? How could you know no one was saying it was murder unless you were present at the time of the discussion. One of the most important aspects of conspiracy theories is being able to discern when there isn't one.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 823168 United States 11/20/2009 1:29 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
Doesn't all of Christianity condemn the taking of innocent life?
So why is it always just the Catholic Church that stands up against abortion?
And yet we are daily reviled on this very forum.
Where are the rest of the Christians when it comes to preventing the 5,000 murdered daily in this country?
The silence is deafening.
Quoting: Bluebird
My guess is that standing up against abortion is a Catholic thing only. Even though other Christians are against it, they seem to shy away from voicing their beliefs as loud as the Catholics. Of course a lot of people on GLP hate Catholics.
I wonder why. Sore spot? Guilty conscious?
Bluebird User ID: 730536 United States 11/20/2009 1:30 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
Good for the catholics (NEVER thought i would say That!)
they are RICH and can do what they want with that money,
in fact it is their duty to withhold it when it comes to going against their doctrine.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 788421
Catholics are not rich. The money the Vatican has is not available to the individual dioceses, parishes, etc. They might receive a little bit of funding but basically each one stands alone financially. Some missionary parishes get funding but for the most part, those in this country are financially on their own for operating expenses, etc. One of the most important aspects of conspiracy theories is being able to discern when there isn't one.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 814325 United States 11/20/2009 2:01 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
From a well known even nationally, a Kansas City talk radio host who himself is a Methodist. Personally, I think Methodists will say "yes" easily at the time of the Great Warning. They will convert in the droves.
______ ___________ _________
CATHOLICS MAKE 'EM SQUIRM IN THE CAPITOL
Posted 11/18/09
You have to hand it to Catholics. They know what they believe, and their leadership is becoming more vocal about it every day. The first time I truly sat up and took notice was a couple of years ago when Union Station hosted the traveling exhibit, “Bodies Revealed.”
If you missed the debate, allow me to summarize. Dead Chinese people, skinless, plasticized and posed in various states of activity are hauled around from city to city. About the time “Bodies” came to Kansas City, ABC's Brian Ross conducted an investigation into the company who “owns” the bodies and built a very chilling case. Those human beings on display were very likely Chinese prisoners, executed and then sold.
I was quick to personally denounce the exhibit on my show. After research and watching the ABC investigation, I learned legislators on both sids of the aisle as well as the State of New York were calling for big investigations of the exhibit's parent company, Premier Exhibitions. Nevertheless, doctors, teachers, and parents overwhelmingly applauded the exhibit as a learning opportunity. A chance to see the mysterious, fascinating human body in a way we've never seen it before. The promoters of the show came to my radio studio with some plasticized organs in the hopes I'd have them on the air for a chit-chat. They were shown the door. Even if these bodies were obtained legally, which I doubt, there still seemed to be something inherently wrong with it to me. The audience didn't widely seem to agree with me. Then I stumbled across a couple of Catholic Bishops' statement on the issue:
“…We regard the "Bodies" exhibit as an unfortunate exploitation of that which is "real" to teach something that could be accomplished by use of models. As such it represents a kind of "human taxidermy" that degrades the actual people who, through their bodies, once lived, loved, prayed, and died. For these reasons, we do not believe that this exhibit is an appropriate destination for field trips by our Catholic schools.”
It was a joint statement from Joseph F. Naumann, Archbishop of Kansas City in Kansas, and Robert W. Finn, Bishop of Kansas City-St. Joseph. If you follow politics at all in this part of the country, you know their names. Archbishop Naumann famously denied former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius communion because of her pro-abortion positions. Many bishops have made news on this issue in recent years. Not exclusive to Democrats, pro-abortion Republicans like Rudi Guiliani have been denied communion as well.
In the waning days of the 2008 presidential campaign, Bishop Robert Finn made a rare phone call to my radio show. I asked him simply what he would say to Catholics who were considering a vote for Barak Obama. His answer? Brace yourself. “I would say give consideration to your eternal salvation…” Not a lot of grey in that statement, now is there?
Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy recently wrote an open letter to his bishop defending his support of taxpayer funded abortion in the latest health care “reform” bill. “The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not make me any less of a Catholic,” Kennedy proclaimed.
Quick to respond in another open letter, Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence shot back, “Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does….Your rejection of the Church's teaching on abortion falls into a different category--it's a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you've re-affirmed on many occasions,” wrote Tobin.
The Bishop slams the door shut on Congressman Kennedy. Brace yourself again. “Sorry, you can't chalk it up to an ‘imperfect humanity.’ Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.”
Ouch.
In Washington D. C., the Roman Catholic Archdiocese has also taken off the gloves. They warned the city council that if same-sex marriage is legalized by their vote next month, the church would cut its social service programs known as Catholic Charities. Estimates place those they serve at some 68,000 local residents, including about a third of the city's homeless people, who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. Officials from the archdiocese said they fear the law might require them to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples.
This is the same city that tried to ban possession of all firearms within city limits. The U.S. Supreme Court had to overturn that madness. I think the Archdiocese is far from paranoid, here.
It is true the church hierarchy has taken a public bruising over the years for the duplicitous behavior of some of their own. But the vast majority of the Catholic Church leads with a clarity, conscience, conviction, and commitment to their beliefs that no politician, press, or public protest will shake. Catholic leadership continues to stand resolute in their beliefs rooted in their faith. Providing politicians with political comfort and cover from the winds of “change” and “progressive” thinking has never been their motivation. Rather, Catholic leaders are providing politicians a spiritual framework with which to make important decisions. They are unapologetic, clear and consistent in their message.
Unapologetic, clear and consistent --everything most politicians are not.
(Listen to Chris Stigall each morning on KCMO 710AM, and read him each week, only in your Landmark. Email Chris at stigall@710kcmo.com)
Bluebird User ID: 730536 United States 11/20/2009 3:17 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
Thanks, AC 325. That is a very good article. I wish all the priests would refuse communion for those who legislate laws that are contrary to even their own religion and force them on the rest of us.
And I am not posting to argue whether abortion is right or wrong even. I KNOW it's wrong already.
On a purely moral issue, it is taking human life that is there before a procedure and is gone after it. Therefore it kills human life. If it is OK to kill some human life, it is to kill any other.
But what I don't understand is why other Christians are not upset about the prospect of funding something that so clearly violates their beliefs.
Librealism and progressivism are as much a religion as any other in that they are also "belief systems" so it is endorsing a mindset. One over another and should not be taxfunded.
I guess I want them to support the Bishops in this regard. If all Christians demanded it, at least we could get this part of the evil out of this monster of a bill.
As it is, it is being considered a "Special interest" or Catholic only issue.
I don't believe it really is. It's a human issue. One of the most important aspects of conspiracy theories is being able to discern when there isn't one.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 788421 United States 11/20/2009 3:19 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
Good for the catholics (NEVER thought i would say That!)
they are RICH and can do what they want with that money,
in fact it is their duty to withhold it when it comes to going against their doctrine.
Catholics are not rich. The money the Vatican has is not available to the individual dioceses, parishes, etc. They might receive a little bit of funding but basically each one stands alone financially. Some missionary parishes get funding but for the most part, those in this country are financially on their own for operating expenses, etc.
Quoting: Bluebird
they still carry a very lot of weight and this wouldn't be an issue without pope's approval
i can't believe i'm actually standing up for catholics
PACNWguy User ID: 688273 United States 11/20/2009 3:20 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
they could sneak in tubal ligation or vacetomies ..no one should be forced to be parent ..many cannot meet those demands required .. planned parenthood says people with even one chronic illness can get vasetomy or tubal ligation now.at reducd cost .... and should THEY HAVE A HARDER TIME MEEDTING LIFES CHALLANGES BEFORE THE THE HUGE RESPONSIBILTY OF CAREING FOR CHILD FOR 20 YEAR IS "FORCED" ON THEM.. ABORTIONS WOULD NOT BE NECCESSARY .. IF FOLKS GOT FIXED .. SHE STILL HAS MONTHLY PERIODS BUT NO MORE PREG ISSUES ... HE DOES NOT GET JAMMED UP IN COURT ORDERED CHILD SUPPORT ISSUES FOR 2 plus DECADES .
Anonymous Coward User ID: 822142 United States 11/20/2009 3:44 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
Well, federal funding for abortions was already "settled law" and has been illegal in this country for many years now and yet this bill will reverse that without it even being put to a separate vote.
First this bill targeted the elderly and will kill them with reductions in Medicare and services.
Next they are targeting women with reduction in "guidelines" for early cancer detection.
Now they sneak the abortions back in.
Does anyone else see a PATTERN here?
And the refunding of abortion using tax money could be the sticking point.
Please contact your congresscritters and tell them NO WAY, Jose, on this.
ALL who find it offensive, Catholic, other Christians, Jewish people or non-religious who just find it totally barbaric.
You don't even to be reliious at all to know that the taking of human life is wrong. But as long as it is ONLY the Catholics raising a ruckus, the critters will think they are offending only a very small number and will think they can get away with it. One of the most important aspects of conspiracy theories is being able to discern when there isn't one.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 822142 United States 11/20/2009 3:49 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
god forbid the gov helps women that do not want a brat
much better to support toothless religious types that scream at women and think they are "moral" and tell people what to do with their bodies. lol
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 822142
If you don't want the "brat", why not put it up for adoption instead of killing it. Many couples (man and woman types) would want to adopt that "brat".
I teach my children that for every responsibility there is a privilege, and for every privilege there is a responsibility.
You have the privilege of having sex, you must be responsible for the consequences.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 822142 United States 11/20/2009 3:51 PM
Re: White House at odds with bishops over abortion--THEY SNEAKED IT BACK IN THE BILL!
Disclaimer: This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality
or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every
effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually
review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.
The content of post
on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in
no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of
the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or
administration of GodlikeProductions.
This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.
Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.
United States
Sweden