mercoledì 18 novembre 2009

Observers said this week that the Republican Party is being torn apart by a conservative rebellion against moderate Republicans, but the Democrats are experiencing their own ideological battle. The Democratic struggle concerns abortion as part of health-care legislation. On the one side are “progressive” Democrats and pro-abortion advocates (the base of the Party), and on the other side are moderate and conservative Democrats led by the Catholic Bishops of the United States.

 

In a recent column in The New York Times, Katharine Q. Seelye quotes Harvard professor of health policy Robert J. Blendon saying that pro-abortion Democrats are facing a “choice between trying to stop an erosion of abortion rights and trying to improve health care for women. “ According to Blendon, this is a clash between “what are described as two fundamental human rights – the right to universal coverage and the rights of women to reproductive services.” On the other side, in letters and personal conversations with Democratic leaders, the Catholic bishops have made it clear that in spite of their support of health care as a fundamental human right, they will have to oppose any legislation that makes it possible for federal money to be used to pay for abortions.

 

According to a story by the Associated Press, Boston’s Cardinal Sean O”Malley spoke directly with President Barak Obama during the funeral services for Senator Edward Kennedy explaining to him how there was no other possible choice for the Church. As the time for the House voting drew near, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, emeritus Archbishop of Washington, called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (a Catholic) to urge the approval of provisions that would allow the Church to support the health-care legislation. (Ironically both Cardinals McCarrick and O’Malley had been criticized by conservative Catholics, including some bishops, for their participation in the Kennedy funeral, but it seems that it was their interventions that convinced the President and Democratic leaders to accept the amendment introduced by Michigan Democratic Representative Bart Stupak that satisfied the concerns of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference and convinced enough conservative Democrat legislators to vote for the bill, approved by the House by a majority of only five votes (220-215). It is clear that the bill would not have survived had it not included the Stupak amendment supported by the Bishops.

 

The amendment blocked abortions – except in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the life of the mother – from being covered by a government run health-insurance plan, or by any insurance plan bought with the help of government subsidies. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Center, NY, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Social Development, said that their concern was to make sure that taxpayers’ money not be used to subsidize abortion. The proposed bill already prohibited the federal direct funding of abortion (called the Hyde Amendment, named for the late Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois). The problem was with the policies bought with a combination of government subsidies and citizens’ personal funds. The Stupak Amendment specifically extends the abortion funding prohibition to these cases too. That the bishops were right in demanding this extension can be seen in the present campaign to prevent the Senate from adopting it in its health-care bill, with some supporters accusing the bishops of being lobbyists and urging that tax exemption be taken away from the Bishops’ Conference.

 

It is interesting that the Catholic Bishops of the United States seem to have recovered the status of moral leaders when there are many still scandalized by their way of handling the priests involved with the abuse of minors. Perhaps it is because this time, the politicians could sense that their point of departure was not political lobbying nor ethical arguments, but faith in Christ as the Only One who reveals, incarnates, and brings about the changes in the human heart upon which a truly just human society can be built. They were able to show that it is not a matter of one “human right” being more important than all others, but of giving witness that only the presence of the risen Christ in the world can ensure that the recognition of human rights does not become a matter of who has the greatest political power.