Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Religious Right Launches Fresh Assault on US Abortion Rights
Catholics and evangelicals join forces to put abortion at centre of Senate debate on healthcare reform
Catholic bishops and Protestant evangelists in the US have unleashed an intense lobbying campaign to force fresh limitations on access to abortion into healthcare legislation under debate in the Senate this week.
Anti-abortion activists protest in May at Notre Dame University in Indiana against the college's decision to invite Barack Obama to address students and to award him an honorary degree. (Photograph: Scott Olson/Getty Images) Pro-choice groups have described the religious ambush of health reform - which this month pressured the House of Representatives to effectively block women from using medical insurance to pay for abortions - as one of the most serious threats to abortion rights of recent years.
The campaign has thrust the divisive issue back to the forefront of US politics, pitting the White House and its allies against religious leaders who have accused the Obama administration of being part of a "culture of death".
Ten days ago more than 150 bishops and other religious leaders issued a declaration denouncing Barack Obama's position on abortion and threatening civil disobedience against new laws affecting that and other social issues, such as gay marriage.
Anti-abortion activists were reinvigorated ahead of the opening of the healthcare legislation debate in the Senate today by their success in garnering support in the House of Representatives over an issue that was widely regarded as having lost its political potency with the election of a pro-choice president.
At the core of the strategy by the Catholic church and Christian evangelists is a campaign to rally churchgoing voters to pressure members of Congress to ensure that new healthcare laws bar government funds from paying for abortions.
The measure's supporters say it merely extends existing policy. But Naral Pro-Choice America, one of the country's largest abortion rights groups, says the effect of such legislation will be to prevent insurance companies that presently pay for abortions from covering terminations. This, they say, is because government funds will be used to run a new insurance exchange designed to make the market more competitive and to subsidise coverage for low-income families.
Naral's communications director, Ted Miller, called the inclusion of the amendment "a wake-up call for America's pro-choice majority".
"It's clear that the election of a pro-choice president and the perception of a pro-choice majority in Congress led many Americans to believe that they could be complacent about a woman's right to choose," he said.
"It goes far beyond the status quo. The amendment would make it nearly impossible for private insurance plans to cover abortion. The status quo is that about 85% of private insurance plans currently cover abortion services. It really prevents women from being able to use their own money to purchase an insurance plan that includes abortion coverage. That's far, far out of step with the current private insurance market."
Pro-choice advocates had thought the anti-abortion camp was in retreat after recent political gains, including Obama's election victory and seven failed attempts to curb abortion rights by public ballot in four states since 2005. Opinion polls showed younger voters were less passionate about the issue than their elders.
But there were flickerings of the old fire when abortion emerged as a central issue in a New York state congressional race last month. Sarah Palin joined other prominent rightwingers in rejecting the Republican candidate, Dede Scozzafava, because she was pro-choice and supported same-sex marriage. They threw their weight behind a hard right independent candidate who eventually lost to a Democrat after Scozzafava withdrew from the race.
On Friday more than 150 Christian leaders and activists, led by conservative evangelicals and Catholics, issued a long declaration denouncing abortion, along with gay marriage and liberal social policies, and threatening to break laws that compromised their beliefs.
The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience says that Obama's stated aim of reducing the need for abortion is a "commendable goal" but alleges that his policies will increase the number of terminations, while accusing the government of being part of "a culture of death".
"The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of foetal development and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense," the declaration reads. "Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views."
Among the signatories are 15 Catholic bishops and leading evangelical Christians such as James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family.
The declaration says supporters will be "united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the licence to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion". Measures will include defiance of the law if laws protecting individuals from having to act against their conscience are changed: for example, if religiously affiliated hospitals are obliged to assist in abortions or research involving the destruction of embryos.
"Through the centuries Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required," the declaration says.
"We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's.
But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."
While a resurgent opposition to abortion has brought various religious interests together, they are otherwise sharply divided about the broader healthcare legislation. Catholic leaders strongly favour ensuring that undocumented immigrants are covered, and a recent opinion poll of Catholic voters showed 73% in favour of a government-run health insurance plan. The evangelical right is passionately against both measures.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
37 Comments so far
Show AllIf you dont believe in abortion...DONT HAVE ONE
IF you dont believe in religious control of government, tell these freaks to back off.
Too true.
Or, if we're going to have religious control of government let's go whole hog and bring back stoning of teenagers! Worthless little brats are stoning themselves on weed anyhow... (doing my best to imitate crotchety old neighbour who disliked me a few years ago)
I wish it was that simple, have you ever tried to have a logical debate with a "devout christian"? I normally don't criticize peoples beliefs, but when they start quoting the bible as their justification on an issue, pisses me off.
Catholic Bishops in this country don't act independently, and members of the Catholic church don't act in this manner without the church's approval. All of them follow the absolute dictates of a single old man, who's NOT EVEN AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, sitting in his office in the Vatican in Rome, which is in A FOREIGN COUNTRY! Do people no longer understand who really runs the Catholic churchs in this country? Do they not understand where the real power behind the drive to force America into following the church's dictates is coming from; the same power that's successfully changing our States' Constitutions one by one against Gays, and are now turning that surge against women? What will they go after next?
JFK was nearly rejected as a candidate for the presidency out of fear that what we're seeing happen now - that our country would be under the rule of that old man in in the Vatican in Rome! A recent news release told of a Catholic Congressional Democrat being denied Communion in the church because of his stance on women's rights. We have a majority of Catholics in our Supreme Court. How fair will they be when it comes to judging matters involving Gays, womens' rights or anything else that would go against their all-powerful Pope? The Catholic church has been the obvious leader in the force behind the states' constitutional amendments against citizens of America, and are now the driving force to change womens' right through our health care system. It's just their first step in that direction.
Exactly. We need to ask Catholic political candidates whether they intend to do the Pope's bidding. And, we need to ask evangelical candidates whether they accept the separation of church and state that our nation was founded upon.
The underpinning of the anti-abortion claims is the theory that "life begins at conception." There's no rational explanation for the claim that fertilized human eggs are as deserving of protection as born human beings. It makes as much sense to say that life begins when the fetus takes its first breath, or when brain activity first occurs.
The "life begins at conception" (LBAC) idea should never be a governing principle in any law, including the Stupak amendment referred to in the article.
Although not a follower of any organized church, I commend the Catholics for being against capital punishment, the current wars in the Middle East, and being in favor of extending health care to all people residing in the U.S. But the advocacy of LBAC has little to do with religion or morals. It's a toxic belief, causing a great deal of harm and unhappiness as a result of its non-rational premise. It has the insidious effect of forcing believers to choose between violence to defend fetuses against "murder," and tolerating their "murder." There's no happiness in being forced into that choice; sometimes it results in actual murder of born humans like Dr. George Tiller. LBAC coerces the birth of unwanted children. If these children were going to end up in wonderful families and grow up to be happy, successful citizens, I might feel differently. But we all know most of them face much unhappiness, as will their families, as they struggle through life with scant help from those who insured they would face these struggles.
Religion seeks to bring consolation and peace to the soul. "Life begins at conception" does the opposite. [This comment was revised.]
Go to site:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/
click on "Wealth, Income, & Power" and page down to the pie charts that show distribution of wealth.
In 2007, 1% of people in this country had 34% of the wealth; 4% had 25%; 5% had 12%; and 10% had 13%. The poorest 80% (that's most of us) had only 15% of the total wealth.
If financial wealth alone is considered, the situation is far worse. 1% had 42% of the financial wealth; 4% had 27%; 5% had 11%; and 10% had 12%. The poorest 80% had only 7%.
The great immorality in this country is the skewed distribution of wealth. It denies those at the bottom health, education, and a decent life. According to a recent article, it also results in a sicker life and an earlier death. In fact, it seems to deny that those at the bottom are human. Until this situation changes (and it probably won't), defining immorality in terms of abortion or gays is stupid.
Why do my comments always include the EDIT option? Do they appear for anyone else to read?
You can edit your comments for spelling errors or any other reason. Only you can edit your comments. Your edited comments instantly replace your previous post in the thread, and everyone sees the new version.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. Women are supposed to submit to the "authority" of an organization that's spending major bucks on studying UFO's and ET's to see how they should be related to? HUH?
Actually. I feel the ufo and e.t. vatican connection is possibly the only positive development in that church since................Well. Ever.
But i did read that there is an agreement for the church to evanglize upon arrival. (and i actually read this). The agreement is with some u.s. department.
Incrementalism: This right abridged here, that unjust law successfully passed there, maybe nobody will notice until the government need not observe the rights of any citizen.
Then let the dumb shits wake up and scream all they want about real governmental intrusion into their lives---not what the right calls governmental intrusion such as universal health care, but indefinite detention without trial, seizure of personal property, and torture as a routine part of any interrogation. And all strictly according to law.
There is a small but active minority who are eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Fascist state, kicking in the door and wrapped in the flag with an open Bible in one hand and 200,000 volts in the other.
The Catholic Bishop of each diocese in the US is the legal owner of all the Church property in that diocese. If you want to keep the bishops from meddling in politics, simply remove the tax exemption from every diocese where the bishop has taken a public stand on a political issue (no matter what the issued). Follow the same procedure for the other denominations and we will have true separation of church and state.
I think removing the tax exemption of ALL churches would be an excellent idea. You do understand, of course, that that would COMPLETELY free them to meddle in politics, and engage in a number of activities that they presently do not (usually) do, such as directly endorse candidates, directly fund candidates, or even become candidates themselves? Do you really want the Bishop of State A becoming the Governor of State A?
On the other hand, do you want "religion" redefined so that faith based secular groups like athiestic organizations, or the Global Warming Church also lose their tax exemptions?
Be careful of what you wish for; you just might get it.
Our churches have already driven God and spirit out of their vast wasteland.
Their ministers only screach hatred and bigotry now.
"God is dead" said Nietzsche. Amen.
It would also free them to be subject to all kinds of lawsuits.
"On the other hand, do you want "religion" redefined so that faith based secular groups like athiestic organizations, or the Global Warming Church also lose their tax exemptions?"
Yes, of course global warming is a religion. Secularism and atheism is faith based. Sure. Let me guess, evolution is also a religion. Etc.
Don't forget science. Science is a religion, and there's even a church called the Church of Scientology.
This was all explained to me when I was abducted by aliens. It was me, Elvis and a Bigfoot on the UFO. The aliens performed terrible experiments on us, and then they told us that science was a religion.
Either that, or I heard about it on FOX News. I can't remember now. I think the aliens might have eaten part of my brain.
Gynacology is a CRIME!!!
And if you can't do the time....
We have been witness to the carefully planned building of a theocratic state with both political parties now in the hands of the American Taliban. They have taken control of the congress and the military. When the born again moron was awarded the election in 2000 and decided to invade Iraq he hired a private christian army led by a lunatic who hated muslims to accompany the new army indoctrinated with southern style born again christianity. An important element in this crusade was Bush's christian zionist ideology which coincided nicely with Israel's desire to surround Iran. Hopefully America will be defeated in Afghanistan setting the christian empire back a bit.
Nader called W a "messianic militarist." The same appellation has recently been given to Palin, and correctly so.
We should use the term "abortion prohibitionists." It's accurate and sets the terms of the debate in a quick second.
I also like challenging the "abortion is murder" crowd with the question: If abortion is murder should women who have abortions be convicted of murder, and do you think they should be sentenced to life in prison, or to death?
I also like: "How many orphans have you adopted?"
Another effective show-stopper is: "Do you think life begins at conception and ends at birth?"
Since many abortion prohibitionists also rail against "spending" and "taxes," we should thank them for their willingness to pay for the lifetime medical care and special-education needs of children born with disabilities and drug addictions, and into hunger and homelessness.
And, by the way, "Catholic leaders?" Are those the same leaders who covered up for the hundreds of priests who sexually molested thousands of children for decades? And how about the congregants who were silent about it? Neither has the slightest moral authority and no one should ever forget it.
I enjoy pointing out the hundreds of thousands of children dying in africa from starvation and the ME due to imperialistic wars.
Those "Catholic leaders" also once told people they had to pay to have their "sins" forgiven.
Its not like a fetus is aware of its own existence anyways.
Regarding your last comment, I happen to think our current system has it right: after viability (about 6 months), abortions are restricted to protection of the life of the mother and other extraordinary circumstances. I'm not comfortable saying what a fetus is aware of, or not aware of, since whatever awareness it may have is developing over the course of time.
Ya, I was referencing our current abortion policies, sorry for not making that clear.
Kind of like algore letting you pay to have your environmental sins forgiven...
Naturally November 30th, 2009 5:53 pm -- I share your puzzlement about the thinking of "abortion prohibitionists." Some other questions for the "life begins at conception" crowd:
Why aren't babies named in utero, since we can now determine sex before birth?
Why shouldn't government issue conception certificates, instead of birth certificates, since we can now determine at an early stage when a woman is pregnant?
And then, why does the census not include unborn persons?
And when an abortion occurs, either naturally (something like 20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage) or otherwise, why shouldn't government issue death certificates and why shouldn't people have funerals and reserve spaces in cemetaries for the remains?
And why shouldn't unborn children be entitled to inherit the same as born individuals?
Why shouldn't their property, if any, pass by intestate succession if they die before birth?
And why doesn't government monitor pregnant women closely so that it can be determined if the products of conception, from day one, are expelled from the woman's body, which by the theory of the prohibitionists, means a person equivalent to you or me has died?
And shouldn't there be laws holding accountable women who don't take steps to prevent miscarriage of early fetuses, or requiring them to consult with a doctor at the beginning of term?
Of course we all know why prohibitionists will never do or advocate the things suggested by these questions. Unborn human individuals aren't REALLY equal to born individuals.
That takes it to the next level. I like all of your ideas, however I think some abortion prohibitionists have already championed the first two (without thinking them through).
Naturally December 1st, 2009 2:07 pm -- Can you give me a cite to that?
The leaders of the American Religious Right, both Protestant Evangelicals and Roman Catholic Church, are clearly BIGOTS.
Their stand against; Freedom of Choice, and Access to a Full Range of Reproductive Services, is clearly an assualt on Womens' Rights.
Today, Christians should abandon the Roman Catholic Church and all other Evangelists who preach "Anti-Woman" hatred and bigotry.
These right-wing fundamentalist evangelical 'enders' are amongst other things hypocritical.
While viewing abortion as a "culture of death" they see no problem with torturing people to death or invading a foreign country (e.g. Iraq and the millions, including babies killed as a result) if the latter citizens have the "wrong" colour or religion or they don't like their non-compliant leader.
Exceptionalism once again, mixed with grandiose delusion.
By the way wasn't there a good historical reason for separating church and state?
Who do you think we should bomb and torture this week in the name of Jesus? I-ran is it or maybe Syria is back in vogue?
Any person in the United States has a right to their OPINION. They also have a right to voice that OPINION.
But when they insist that the rest of the country must comply with _their_ OPINION, and not have a differing one, that is where their rights STOP.
The 14th Amendment prohibits laws which oppress minorities. Are not the women who get pregnant and wish not to be, a minority? Are not poor women who can't afford to pay for an abortion out of pocket, a minority?
Fundamentalist "Christians" are only a small slice of the total population of the United States. Why must the rest of us be forced to listen to their CRAP all the time. They do NOT represent _all_ of Christianity, let alone those Americans who aren't Christian at all.
It is time for the poor of America to DEMAND social justice.
Oh progressives! Your name-calling and whinning anti-religious bigotry would be laughable were it not so hypocritical. See this article for what it really is--an amazing amalgamation of otherwise irreconcilable factions around a single issue on which they do agree.
It would be as if progressivces, greens, and libertarians joined forces to oppose the wars or aggression that are now rolling into their 9th year of existence in the middle east.
It would be as if civil libertrarians, bar associations, and the judiciary united against the revocation of habeus corpus, mililtary commissions, and indefinate detention as indicative of being manifestations of an outlaw state.
What these admitted nut-cases are showing progressives is how political activism gets done and makes an impact on the otherwise immovable object known as "the state".
Instead of taking notes and starting to reach out to others all that so many of you can do is sit around and bitch and whine about how unfair it all is.
Until you all get some of the same fire in your belly that your opponents have you will remain a laughing stock and deserve nothing more.
Poet
Oh Christians ! Your support of torture, rape, rape of children while prating about morality and ethics would be laughable were it not so pathetically hypocritical.
Thank you for proving my point.
Poet
Have you ever heard the concept of group think? Most people who support "right wing" policies either lack the intelligence to understand anything except what they are told, have a hidden agenda, or are simply too close minded to accept the truth, therefore much more susceptible to group think. (At least those I've met)
I'm not claiming every member of the progressive community is intelligent, but every one I've met is fairly open minded, making them less susceptible to group think. And without group think its hard to have a solid leadership, making a movement significantly harder to solidify.
It's not that I disagree with you, and I see the point you're trying to make.
Have you ever heard of sacrifice for a common goal?
The Quakers, Mennonites, mainline Protestant churches, Roman Catholics, Stalinist and Maoist Communists, as well as anarchists certainly understood this concept when it came to opposing the Vietnam War.
It was the same with the woman liberationists whether their issue was equal pay for equal work, Lesbian rights, greater representatrion within the councils of governmewnt, or reproductive health issues.
Similar alliances have formed around home schooling, AIDS awareness and prevention, and opposition to mnonopolistic capitalist globalism. The three things all these alliances had in common were:
an undistracted constitutiancy around the issue,
a genuine passion for the issue at hand that was strong enough to overlook the that about others within an alliance with which they disagreed and
the willingness to take action in order to illustrate that "business as usual" cannot and must not continue.
The "masters of the universe" took note and it is no accident that in the past 40 years they have worked tirelessly to cultiuvate a society that:
Focuses on endless entertainment and spectacle,
Cultivated dumbed-down education that does not promote critical thinking skills and
Developed the scandalizing or ridiculing of anyone with even a scintilla of idealistic fervor or vision to a polished art form.
Poet
"The Quakers, Mennonites, mainline Protestant churches, Roman Catholics, Stalinist and Maoist Communists, as well as anarchists certainly understood this concept when it came to opposing the Vietnam War."
I certainly don't understand what you're trying to convey here, because that is most definitely not a true statement.
Secondly, I have heard of sacrifice for a common goal, but the problem is, their is no common goal(on most issues) because most people who wish to improve society are capable of independent thought, unlike the minivan driving soccer mom who thinks Sarah Palin is the greatest thing since the lunchable.
AND IF their is a common goal among progessives, not only do intelligent people who understand these concepts make up a small fraction of the population, but they also get very little media attention because every station is to busy trying to figure out who the father of miley cyrus's child is.
And again, i'm not disagreeing with you, i'm just stating why it will never happen.