This article was originally published on HuffingtonPost.com.
Jim Wallis' protracted lecture on how abortion has become a central part of the health care reform debate proves how truth is, indeed, one of the first casualties of war--even a culture war. Here, I examine just a few of his statements to show how his version of events is so far removed from reality that we should reject his premises, arguments and conclusions in toto.
"The culture wars have begun again.
Jim is mistaken. Did the culture wars ever go away?
And if they did, who has reignited the flames? Throughout this process,
we in the pro-choice community have supported health care reform and
worked hard with Members of Congress to pass a comprehensive health
care reform package. We have stayed true to our core values, seeking to
overcome the struggles ordinary Americans have making ends meet. These
struggles mean that many cannot afford basic health care or have to
choose between maintaining their health and paying for other basic
necessities. The anti-choice lobby, with the US Conference of Catholic
Bishops and its Office of Prolife Activities at the helm, has shown
that it is willing to stop at nothing to ensure that its own views,
which are shared by very few Americans, held sway. This lobby, aided by
the 64 Democrats who voted to insert unfounded red herrings into a
critical life-and-death debate over the basic right of access to health
care, exploited the vulnerabilities of the Democratic Party. Wallis is
an exemplar of this lobby, seeking to limit access to abortion at every
turn. He was ably abetted by the self-described "progressive
pro-lifers" like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the
Common Good, whose comparisons of abortion to torture gained resonance
among those who are unyieldingly opposed to women's reproductive
freedoms. We should not forget that Catholics United and Catholics in
Alliance for the Common Good were founded with the support of senior
Democratic strategists--whose main interest was in a Congressional
majority, and not the goals and principles supported by those who might
vote for such a majority.
"Those of us who have worked hard to find some common ground in
this debate, it's now becoming an all win-or-lose situation.... [We
have sought] to help forge some compromise."
Jim is mistaken. He is not interested in any compromise that includes access to abortion. The pro-choice community has been working hard to find a middle ground in the abortion debate. There were those of us who were more than willing to refine the Capps Amendment that was rejected by the anti-choice lobby, but Wallis and his friends worked tirelessly to reject any compromise along those lines. Jim Wallis' limited discussions with the pro-choice community have been obstructionist and unhelpful. As regards compromise, there was, in reality, no room for compromise once the anti-choice movement decided that it was willing to trade health care reform in their desire to further restrict access to abortion.
"The bill that was passed by the House was a huge step toward one of the greatest legislative accomplishments and victories for social justice in a generation."
Jim is mistaken. The bill, as currently constructed, is like passing the Americans with Disabilities Act, but excluding the visually impaired from the protections in the legislation. Leaving out what Jim coyly refers to, with quotes, as "women's health" is anathema to those of us who fight for improved access to women's health care services every day. If we exclude access to abortion for women in this bill, all of the other advances are compromised. Reproductive justice is the basis of women's equality--without it, women become second-class citizens.
"The bill that came out of the House achieves many of the goals of the faith community by providing health care for 36 million more people, or almost 96% of Americans."
Jim is mistaken. The reality is that health care reform was not initiated to achieve the goals of the faith community. The aim of the bill was to provide health care for those who did not have it. Americans were promised that if people liked their existing coverage, they would not lose it. That promise has been broken.
"While we still need to include everybody -- especially immigrants for whom this bill is still very inadequate -- the House vote was a major legislative achievement."
Jim is mistaken. Just as he is willing to throw women's health care under the bus, so is Wallis also willing to throw immigrants' health under the bus. The needs or rights of any group that get in the way of Jim Wallis' definition of what constitutes a "major legislative achievement" are expendable.
"Although the Capps Amendment was meant as a good faith effort to find common ground...it failed to address many pro-life concerns...Capps might have been a fruitful starting point for dialogue."
Jim is mistaken. Polling has shown that many Americans are willing to support a compromise on this issue, such as that outlined in the Capps Amendment. Polls by Catholics for Choice and the Mellman Group prove this. However, this compromise was not enough for anti-choice extremists such as Jim Wallis. We should also remember that it is not always possible to meet people half way. And in such cases, the majority should hold sway. Sadly, the Democratic leadership decided that the minority view, and Bart Stupak's opposition to abortion is the view of a very small minority, would win the day. And American women were the losers.
"Sojourners...worked very hard to find a solution here and were one of the very few groups really talking to both sides."
Jim is mistaken. Sojourners' discussions with the pro-choice side must have been in whispers, because few recall hearing from them and as I noted above, what we did hear was described as obstructionist and unhelpful.
"Because the pro-life side wasn't really invited into a real discussion about possible solutions, the "compromise" missed some important things, misread the real situation, and failed to pass the tests of maintaining current law, abortion neutrality, and the status quo."
Jim is mistaken. The antiabortion side decided that it was not interested in any compromise, hence the "my way or the highway" showdown between on one side Bart Stupak and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership on the other. Therefore they pushed us beyond a compromise, "the current law, abortion neutrality and the status quo." In fact, this is particularly hard to fathom--given the demand by Bart Stupak and others that the bill would fail if their language, and no version thereof was acceptable, was not given a vote and included in the final bill to pass the House of Representatives.
"Both sides had seemed to agree with the principle that no one should be required to fund abortion if their conscience compels them not to, and that no abortion should be paid for with federal funds."
Jim is mistaken. Both sides had agreed that we would support a bill that would not further either side's agenda. Through our taxes, we are all forced to fund things with which we disagree. For those who support immigration reform, including Jim Wallis we understand, funding for unjust immigration policies should be opposed. Yet we have never heard him support moves that would destroy legislation over those issues. Why is abortion different?
"The pro-choice side acknowledges the conscience argument, but wants to ensure access to legal abortion and believes that such access should not be restricted by those who oppose the law on the grounds of conscience. This tacit agreement also follows public opinion in that a majority of the country doesn't want to make all abortions illegal, but doesn't want public funds to pay for it."
Jim is mistaken. His approach to conscience protections is very one-sided. In fact, we find that a majority of Catholics supports federal funding for abortion, as do other cohorts of the population. The claim that the public is unhappy with federal funding is a myth propagated by those opposed to abortion. Would he have us disregard the consciences of women and men who support abortion access?
"How to protect the consciences of both sides here -- pro-life tax payers and the women who want access to legal abortion -- is a most difficult issue to resolve."
Jim is mistaken. This is a false dichotomy. Prolife taxpayers and pro-choice taxpayers might be a reasonable comparison, or perhaps those who want to preserve access to legal abortion and those who wish to deny access to legal abortion. The circle of people who support choice extends beyond women who want access to legal abortion--it includes men, women who are not able to or no longer able to have children and a host of others. It is, in reality, a simple issue to resolve. All insurance policies, federal and private, should offer medical coverage for legal health services to those who want them. If anybody is uncomfortable about what is offered, they can choose not to avail of those services.
"More than 85% of those women, if present numbers hold up, will pay for the abortion with private funds, and only 13% will use health-care plans to pay for it."
Jim is mistaken. This is one of the many misrepresentations by those who seek to minimize the impact of the Stupak-Pitts amendment. The claim that only a few women will be affected is irrelevant and wrong. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the claim is wrong on three counts:
Their study was of all women who had an abortion in 2001, including women on Medicaid and those who are uninsured--who would not have been able to access coverage for abortion. If we looked only at privately insured women, the percentage of procedures billed directly to insurance companies would be substantially higher than 13 percent.
The 13 percent statistic does not include women who pay for an abortion up front and then seek reimbursement from their insurance provider. This is common when a medical provider does not participate in a patient's insurance plan, as is often the case with small, specialized providers, including abortion providers.
Some of the women identified as paying out of pocket would likely have had insurance coverage for abortion care, but did not know they had it or chose not to use it for reasons of confidentiality. Given the stigma that still surrounds abortion, many women do not want their insurer or employer--or their spouse or parent who may be the primary policyholder--to learn that they had one.
"We could also take the two bills in Congress that seek to reduce abortion by supporting low-income women in all kinds of practical ways -- one with support for contraception and one without."
Jim reveals his real agenda. Despite his carefully nuanced positions, we know that Jim Wallis is anti-choice and opposes access to comprehensive reproductive health services for women. In this passage, Jim Wallis lets his guard down. In Jim Wallis' world, women's health care services are expendable. We can see this in his willingness to allow the debate over abortion to go even further and exclude access to contraception as well. Is the Stupak amendment not enough for him? No, it is not.
In short, Jim Wallis' arguments repeat the talking points of those who have sought to restrict access to abortion since it became legal in 1973. Wallis lays claim to the mantle of negotiator and centrist, the voice of reason in an acrimonious and angry debate. In fact he is the opposite. Wallis is antiabortion, and according to his essay, is open to seeing health care reform go beyond the abortion issue and also restrict access to contraception. His is not the voice of reason, but that of a culture warrior in extremis. The fact that he wears clerical garb should not distract us from the fact that he is more political than pastoral and that one of his goals is to make abortion illegal. Our mantra is "Safe, Legal and Accessible." His is "Dangerous, Illegal and Inaccessible."
I agree with Jim Wallis that the truth has become a casualty in this war. But if Jim Wallis and his conservative allies have their way, women will become another casualty. ]]>This is only the first salvo in the bishops’ campaign against women’s health. Just imagine for a moment what healthcare will look like when the bishops are finished. There will be absolutely no access to abortion—even in cases of rape or incest. Women will be detained in prison if it is thought they want to travel abroad for an abortion. There will be no IVF. No contraception. No treatment for ectopic pregnancy or medical anomalies during pregnancy. No respect for your advance medical directives and no use of cures gained through stem-cell research. There will be nothing that doesn’t meet the myriad litmus tests prescribed by a small group of men who don’t represent American Catholics, let alone the America populace.
We hope that, as this struggle continues, Congress realizes that those who want to destroy the possibility of meaningful healthcare reform may have employed good lobbyists, but ultimately the voters will take down all those who betray the needs of the people for short-term political gains. President Obama was elected just one short year ago on a prochoice ticket. If the electorate sees that a woman’s right to choose is not a core value but simply a bargaining chip to be laid on the table when the going gets tough, there will be a price to pay.
We call on the Democratic leadership and all of our elected representatives to put forward healthcare reform that can be endorsed by the American people, not just the US bishops.
]]>This article originally appeared in the Washington Post online "On Faith" section. It was co-authored by Jon O'Brien, President and Sara Morello, Vice President of Catholics For Choice.
The United States is embroiled in a debate over health care. Ideological divides over morality and money are front and center, and threatening to derail any real progress on what has become a major crisis.
There is a curious divide in the national conversation we are having about what exactly health care is or what it should be. More often than not, it's about who or what should be left out of the final plan. Some say that it should only be about providing care to some people; others say it should be only about covering some parts of people. Proponents of these positions claim the moral high ground while seeking to leave out undocumented residents or restrict access to reproductive health care. What they are really doing is projecting their own vision of what is moral onto those who will be most affected by this distortion: the taxpayers who will fund and use whatever system emerges.
Coming on the heels of the economic crisis, it is no wonder that many focus on the questions, "What can we afford?" or more precisely, "What are we willing to pay for?" They are not unreasonable questions. But the answers that some people -- some who claim to speak for American Catholics -- provide are not reflective of what Catholics in the United States believe. We know, because rather than simply relying on those who seem to have the best public relations, we asked nearly a thousand American Catholics what they believe about health care and health care insurance. If you've relied on the newspapers, bloggers and television news, the answers might surprise you.
Most American Catholics think providing health care to all people who need it is a matter of social justice. As Catholics, we understand that social justice means we are obliged to be concerned about and care for people who are poorer than we are, or marginalized, or those who don't have a voice in decisions that have an impact on their lives and the lives of their families. When we asked Catholics, they said that their understanding of social justice includes extending health care to the whole person, not just some parts of people. As a result, a majority of American Catholics think that reproductive health care services should be covered in any eventual reform of the U.S. health care system--including pre- and postnatal care for women, contraception, condom provision as part of HIV/AIDS prevention, and, yes, even abortion.
American Catholics don't want to be denied the health care services they need at hospitals and clinics that receive their tax dollars. Two-thirds (65 percent) of Catholics polled think that these hospitals and clinics should not be allowed to claim a religious exemption to providing procedures or medicines. Perhaps they understand better than many that the right to object to providing health care belongs to doctors, nurses and pharmacists, actual people who have a conscience. These people have the right to exercise their conscience to act--or not act--in a way their internal moral compass prescribes. They understand that it does not make sense to suggest that an insurance company, HMO, hospital system, pharmacy or clinic has a conscience or a religion.
American Catholics can picture themselves as patients, and want to be able to get birth control and condoms when they go to their doctor. They trust in patients to decide, in good conscience and with the advice of their doctors, on their best options. They don't want yet another obstacle placed in the way of receiving health care they're paying for--especially one that's based on a false premise. American Catholics also think they can speak for themselves. While most are not strongly opposed to the U.S. Catholic bishops taking a stand on the issue of health care reform legislation, they certainly do not want the bishops telling Catholics that they should oppose health care reform if it includes coverage for abortion that they themselves, their wives, sisters or daughters might need. And despite his historic election with support from 52 percent of Catholic voters, the Catholics we polled don't think President Obama--or the Democratic Party--are well representing their interests.
Catholics for Choice is clear about what we believe. We believe that all people should have access to the health care they need. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of American Catholics polled agree. We believe contraception should be available and covered by insurance. More than 60 percent of American Catholics agree.
We believe that abortion should be covered by insurance--whether private or government subsidized. Depending on the circumstances, as many as 84 percent agree with us, and when the question really comes down to respecting a woman's conscience in regard to her own health, a full half (50 percent) of Catholics polled agree that abortion should be covered whenever a woman and her doctor decide she needs it. Catholics are far more progressive than their bishops, our instinct tells us that, and our poll results prove it.
This conversation about health care and what Catholics think about it is, however, bigger than reforming health care and health insurance in the United States. US commitments to improve the health of people around the world, especially for women and girls, have been neglected for many years. Unfortunately, this neglect is compounded by the power of the Catholic hierarchy and other conservatives to do exactly what we are trying to avoid in the health care reform process. We cannot allow the voices of a small, well-funded and politically powerful group without much personal stake in the outcome to decide what parts of people are worthy of care, to decide from afar what women and men need to live healthy lives.
At Catholics for Choice, we believe in a world where women and men are trusted to make important, moral decisions about their lives. Perhaps no issue is more central to people's lives than their health. Using the status of political or religious leadership to promote an agenda to which one's community does not subscribe does a disservice to that community. It is not a social justice agenda. Social justice does not mean telling people what would be best for them, and then seeing to it that those who disagree do not have the means to do otherwise. We believe it means making sure everyone has a chance to make the most of their lives, trusting people to make the decisions they need to make for themselves and their families. That means giving them a hand up when they need it--whether we are of the same nation, political party, faith or family. We believe the conversations on health care should focus on social justice and doing the right thing.
]]>This article was originally published on Huffington Post.
Earlier this week, in his social encyclical Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict claimed that the church does not "interfere in any way in the politics of States." These words were especially pertinent for Friday's meeting between President Obama and the pope.
While both men are world leaders, the pope and the president maintain distinctly different roles as a religious leader and a political leader, respectively. We must be clear that the pope does not command the same type of global responsibility as a member of the Group of Eight, such as the United States, and to expect G8-type political outcomes from this meeting would be unrealistic and wrong.
Although Pope Benedict and President Obama play different roles in the world, there are undoubtedly valuable issues that the two men can discuss. Taking even a quick look at Caritas in Veritate, one will find many examples of the similar outlooks the two leaders share on issues pertaining to poverty, the rights of immigrants and the benefits of scientific progress. Both men strive for an end to both war and hunger. Both aim to safeguard the environment and protect religious freedoms. The pope may have the moral stature to promote these causes but the president has the political power to effect change at a policy level.
The common views the pope and president share affect the lives of people in the US and around the world, especially those living in poverty. As such, it is beneficial for them to discuss these issues. With wars abounding and financial crises overwhelming us, it is always positive when people of good will and good intent can agree, discuss and inspire one another to work even harder to better our world.
President Obama need not lecture the pope about the inner workings of the Catholic church. It is a widely known fact that Catholics the world over disagree with the dictates of the Vatican on issues pertaining to sexual and reproductive health and rights. Catholics must let the pope and other members of the church hierarchy know that the Vatican is out of touch, the teachings flawed and people suffer as a result. That message need not come from President Obama; rather, it is up to Catholics to raise these concerns.
In the same vein, Pope Benedict need not lecture the president about the needs of people in the US. This nation was founded by those who suffered from religious persecution and fled to America to be free to practice religion as they saw fit. It is therefore no surprise that the separation of church and state was and continues to be a cornerstone of US democracy. Politics should not interfere with religion nor should religion interfere with politics. People of every religion and no religion should be equally represented; freedom of religion and freedom from religion must be guaranteed. With this in mind, the pope should not feel the need to lecture President Obama on matters of internal US policy.
However, recent evidence suggests that the pope's claims that church does not "interfere in any way in the politics of States" are more than a little disingenuous.
In the United States alone, we have several examples. Take, for instance, when the US bishops successfully lobbied to strip life-saving family planning measures from the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) bill in 2008. Moreover, the bishops continue to lobby for conscience clauses (or, more correctly, refusal clauses) that protect entire institutions-not individuals-and exclude abortion and contraception from healthcare reform. Both measures could limit access to vital reproductive healthcare services. These are all classic examples of how the pope, through the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, interferes in US politics.
The reality is that this meeting is more about symbolism and respect for each other and the institutions they represent than anything else. As Pope Benedict is a religious leader and does not take on the responsibilities that President Obama has as a political leader, we cannot and should not expect any substantial outcomes. However, the two men can and should definitely discuss what they agree on and inspire one another to move forward doing good work.
Post-Meeting Update
The meeting between Pope Benedict XVI and President Obama was, by all accounts, cordial, despite the fact that the two men discussed many issues, some of which they agree about, others not.
According to the Vatican’s chief spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, SJ, their conversation started with “the defense and promotion of life and the right to abide by one’s conscience,” and also encompassed a host of other topics including the Middle East peace process, the economic crisis, food security and immigration.
They are both men of principle who are convinced that the policies they support are the correct ones. While there are many issues on which they agree, it is refreshing to see that it is possible to have discussions about abortion and stem-cell research that do not descend into shrill protests. The pope and the president’s cordial meeting should be an example to the loud minority that opposed the very idea of Obama’s presence at the University of Notre Dame in the US earlier this year.
It is also very refreshing to hear that the pope acknowledged the importance of conscience in making decisions that have ethical and moral consequences. Catholic teachings place a high value on an individual’s conscience, and we hope that the reference to this teaching reminds the pope, the president and everybody else to respect the conscientious decisions of others.
]]>We know that Catholics are as likely to suffer from fertility problems as is the rest of the population and they should have the support of their hierarchy as they pursue parenthood. Catholics also understand the potential of embryonic stem-cell research, and support it in large numbers. A poll we carried out during the summer found that almost seven in ten Catholics in the US favor stem-cell research with early human embryos (69 percent). A similar number support decoupling science from religion, rejecting the Catholic hierarchy's attempts to influence scientific endeavor. An even larger proportion (73 percent) say they believe Catholic politicians are under no religious obligation to vote on issues the way the bishops recommend. This may be an issue during the coming administration if Congress is asked to vote on whether to extend federal funding for such vital research.
It is true that the Catholic hierarchy has had a long and public battle with science and scientists over the centuries. What's perhaps less well known is the fact that despite these battles, various elements of the Catholic church have a long and well respected reputation for supporting scientific endeavor. Church teachings not only allow but encourage adherents to the Catholic faith to support and promote scientific discovery. We need that aspect of the church to step forward now, and show the world that Catholicism and scientific progress can work in harmony to help develop the cures we need to deal with disease and infertility.
A famous Catholic scientist, John Rock, had some sage words for the Catholic bishops. Rock, who was the co-inventor of the contraceptive pill, received a letter from an angry conservative. "You should be afraid to meet your Maker," she wrote soon after the pill was approved. "My dear madam," Rock replied, "in my faith, we are taught that the Lord is with us always. When my time comes, there will be no need for introductions." Rock was also a pioneer in in-vitro fertilization and the freezing of sperm cells, and was the first to extract an intact fertilized egg. Here clearly was a man who did much to promote life and the dignity of the individual. Now that is something that all good Catholics can support.
]]>As shown in our poll, "The Catholic Voter in Summer 2008," Catholic voters, like all voters around the country, are most concerned with the bread-and-butter issues that effect all Americans. Catholics showed once again that the most important factors in their decision about who should be the next president and the issues they want him to focus on were improving the economy, affordable health care, ending the war in Iraq and keeping the country safe from terrorism. Catholics represented the largest swing in religious voters in this presidential election, with seven percent more Catholics voting for the Democratic candidate as compared to 2004.
Catholics voted their conscience over the objections of their bishops who issued statements and lobbied against the candidacy of Barack Obama because of his prochoice stance. This wasn't always easy; on the eve of the election, Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St, Joseph, appearing on a radio show, said to Catholics considering a vote for the Democratic candidate: "Give consideration to your eternal salvation."
While it was a small minority of the bishops across the country, there were several who pushed the message that the issue of abortion should trump all others for Catholic voters on Election Day. A letter from Fort Worth Bishop Kevin Vann and Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell called abortion "intrinsically evil" and said that it is "morally impermissible" for Catholics to vote for prochoice candidates over pro-life candidates. Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli from Patterson, NJ criticized President-Elect Obama's support of the Freedom of Choice Act writing that, "We choose our leaders who make our laws. Every vote counts. Today, either we choose to respect and protect life, especially the life of the child in the womb of the mother or we sanction the loss of our most basic freedoms. At this point, we are still free to choose!"
Many Catholics were rightly turned off by this overt electioneering. In our poll of likely Catholic voters, 70 percent said that the views of Catholic bishops are unimportant to them in deciding for whom to vote and 73 percent said they believe they are under no religious obligation to vote on issues the way the bishops recommend. On Election Day, Catholic voters held firm to those views and showed just how misguided those few bishops and conservative Catholics are who claimed the issue of abortion must trump all others.
Despite the hierarchy's claims that abortion needed to be the one issue that Catholics voted on, and in direct contradiction to alarmist claims made by a few reporters and headline writers, Catholics overwhelmingly disagreed with the idea that abortion should be the deciding factor this election. Those bishops who didn't interfere in this election cycle are to be commended for not going the old route of communion wars and threats of excommunications. There is change in the air and more and more public officials recognize that the views of the hierarchy do not reflect the views or votes of their constituents.
Those few bishops who sought to make the election about abortion, and abortion alone, showed how out of touch they are with most Catholics. We hope that, as the bishops come together this week, they do not bend to those ultra-conservative bishops but instead temper the dialogue, seeking to bring their flocks with them and not push them away. The bishops should not spend this week attempting to spin doctor their way out of a crushing defeat. Instead they should focus on a pastoral approach to the common good that speaks to the majority of Catholics who voted in favor of a president who shares their values on sexual and reproductive health-as well as many other issues.
As prochoice Catholics, we celebrate the election of a prochoice president who has been a strong supporter of abortion rights, comprehensive sexuality education and access to reproductive health care. The next administration will have to work hard to repair the damage done to reproductive right during the last eight years: the Global Gag Rule, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, subordinating science to personal belief, and a pervasive program against family-planning efforts. Undoubtedly, concerns about America's economic security and military engagements overseas will garner a great deal of attention. However, we urge the next administration and Congress to also work for advances in reproductive health care in the US and abroad.
Catholic voters overwhelmingly endorsed an agenda that includes access to family planning, comprehensive age-appropriate sex education and caring adoption programs in order to reduce the need for abortion. We will continue to stand with this majority of Catholics worldwide who disagree with the dictates of the Vatican on matters related to sexuality, contraception and parenthood. We are excited about the prospect of working with the new administration and Congress to effect change for the better on issues of sexual and reproductive health and rights, both domestically and internationally.
]]>Read the Catholics for Choice statement on the bishops' gathering in Baltimore here.