Define Pro-Life

by muon

You'd think, regardless how far apart the factions of this country are on the abortion issue, there's one thing we all ought to be able to agree on. No matter when you believe life starts, or for that matter, when you believe life ends, we all ought to agree that in between the start and end, human beings are alive. Anyone out there have an issue with that? Speak up.

Today I heard a priest--one I like and respect--say that we needed to protect life "from the moment of conception until the moment of..." Knowing this priest, I expected him to say "...until the moment of death." He didn't. He said "...until the moment of birth." I was dumbfounded. What about the rest of life?

To me, anyone calling themselves pro-life ought to commit to an across-the-board definition. Otherwise, you're only anti-abortion. What about the moment after birth, when that new baby may need extraordinary measures to keep him alive? If the family has no health care insurance, will that baby, "protected" until the moment of birth end up dying because he had to be born at home with no medical personnel in attendance?

What about as that baby grows up? Will he have decent nutrition? Or will he develop malnutrition issues or childhood obesity, because his neighborhood is a junk food mecca and a fresh food desert? Will he fail to get an adequate education because his public school was taken over by a for-profit company? Will he be stuck in a cycle of poverty the rest of his "life?" Will he be seduced into illegal activities as the only way to survive, because he can't get a job without an education? Will he end up being "protected" in the prison system? Will he take possibly the one honorable option open to him, and join the military, possibly to die in a war that supports only the interests of multinational corporations? Will he survive that and return home instead physically or mentally disabled, perhaps with a shorter life expectancy and a burden to society? Assuming of course, that legislators leave the social programs in place that would allow him to "live" at all.  Will he have food and fuel and clothing and healthcare, and Social Security in his later years, to allow him to stay alive?

In my opinion, you've got no business going around puffing out your chest, claiming you're pro-life, unless you commit to it whole hog. If you want to define pro-life as anti-abortion, fine, but you'd better include anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-poverty, anti-sickness, anti-ignorance, and anti-everything else that doesn't give each baby born a chance at a long, productive life. If you can commit to all these things, then I'm okay with your preaching to me about it from the pulpit. I may not agree with all your politics, but I'll feel you have a real respect for human life. Otherwise, don't tell me who to vote for. Come to think of it, don't tell me who to vote for either way.

This is why, this week, I'm supporting the Nuns On The Bus. They're a group of American Catholic sisters who are traveling from Des Moines to Washington, DC, trying to educate people about the plight of the poor in America. These days, we aren't talking about the poor as a tiny percentage of the population--half of the population earns less than $35,000 annually. The poverty level right now includes nearly a quarter of all Americans. The Nuns are bringing attention to Republican policies, and particularly the Paul Ryan budget, which would eliminate so many social programs that at least give poorer Americans a chance to survive past those "protected" months before birth.

The Nuns were told by the Catholic hierarchy to quit wasting all their time on the poor and instead, hop aboard the anti-abortion bandwagon. The sisters refused. They understand the meaning of pro-life.

Go sisters!

COMPROMISE CAN WORK?

by Ruth A. Sheets

Well, it’s happened again, or has it?  President Obama seems to have “folded” in the face of the PR campaign by the Roman Catholic bishops.  They whined and complained that their religious freedom would be limited if Catholic employers had to cover contraception services for women working for them. 

In reality, President Obama decided to let them have their way requiring only that insurance companies cover the services for any woman in religion-related organizations who want contraception.  Before I realized this was a true compromise,  I thought President Obama had collapsed again under the Right’s onslaught.

On “The News Hour,” I heard Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services explain the decision.  She said that insurance companies are willing to cover contraception services because for women who use these services, the total cost of medical care decreases significantly, up to 15%. 

This sounds like a good deal for everyone involved.  All women who want coverage even if they work for a church-based organization which employs folks of other faiths can get it, a “good” compromise!

However, hints of rejection on the part of the Roman Catholic command are spreading.  It seems that unless they get exactly what they want, they will keep fighting.  It makes no sense unless one realizes that the Roman Catholic battle is really against women who might want to make their own decisions about life and birth.  It is presented under the guise of “Religious Freedom.”

The bishops and their Right-Wing supporters cry “Religious freedom!” yet, they can’t seem to imagine that others’ desire for that same religious freedom is just as valid. 

For example, a majority of  Americans have come to understand that same sex marriage will not destroy marriage or even impact their own lives in any way.  Many believe that people’s gender preferences are God’s will or gift.  However, right-wing religious groups still pour resources into fighting the right of gay couples to marry.  What about the religious freedom of gay Americans and their supporters?

For another example, many people, like me, believe that life begins when a fetus can live outside the mother’s womb with a minimum of technological support.  We believe that God has given women their own bodies for which they   are responsible.  Choosing abortion is an option for women who cannot bear a child, do not want to have a child at the time of their pregnancy, or need to terminate the pregnancy due to rape, incest, the woman’s health, or severe disability of the fetus.

The Religious Right is doing everything to limit the religious freedom of the people who believe as I do.  They are making abortion very difficult to get and for poor women, almost impossible to afford. 

The hypocrisy is highly evident, yet, the media covers the bishops’ cry for religious freedom as though it has more validity than the religious argument for abortion or same-sex marriage.  The only way this makes sense is if this is not a religious freedom issue at all, but a way of establishing religion in America, )which as the Right so often tells us, is against the Constitution).

Maybe instead of continuing to fight contraception, the best thing for the Roman Catholic bishops and their followers to do would  be to spend their time and resources on taking care of their flock.  They could better use their money to keep more Catholic schools open in poor neighborhoods, provide more services for the children who are “rescued” from abortion.  They could spend pulpit time helping their members to be more loving and accepting of people whose beliefs and opinions are different from their own.

I know, I know!  Dream on!  As I mentioned earlier, this is not really about  religion.  It is about women getting too uppity and it’s about power and what the power of the Church can do to influence life in America.  President Obama needs to be aware that no matter what compromise he makes with the Roman bishops, he cannot win unless he tows the line with them and knuckles under to their demands, all the time on every issue.

Since he cannot do that, he should make a reasonable attempt to meet them on ground that won’t put non-Catholics at risk, then stand firm.  On this issue, he has done the former.  Now we’ll see if he can do the latter and remain strong.

Dear Men in Government and the Catholic Church, Grow Up

by muon

Frankly, I'm getting fed up with the whole Contraception vs. the Catholic Church issue.

On one side, I saw one of the letters read in Catholic churches across the nation. The letter repeatedly used the  phrase "almost all employers" when talking about the mandate for contraception benefits, but never stated that all churches who wanted to be were exempt. The Catholic churches in my town don't have schools or hospitals attached to them, yet they implied to their parishioners that this would apply to Catholic workers in the employ of these churches, which wasn't true. The letter also said "abortion services" were mandated. I read the bill and couldn't find any reference to mandated "abortion services" benefits, in fact, it stated that abortive drugs would definitely NOT be covered. Possibly the church is referring to contraceptives as "abortion services." I suspect the phrase was simply thrown in to push people's emotional buttons. Whatever the case, I hope the American bishops all went to confession this week about the half truths in that letter.

On the other side, seriously, what a stupid thing for the President to do in an election year. Why all of a sudden start dictating to employers what they can and can't do, especially on a divisive issue like this, when the administration's been pushing for compromise and bipartisanship for the last 4 years? I don't kid myself that the Executive Branch suddenly woke up last week all concerned about the health of women receiving healthcare benefits from Catholic institutions. No, this decision had to be political in some way. I just don't get the angle.

Then there's the media, who ALWAYS finds Catholic men to explain the church's side. PBS interviewed a prof at Catholic University. They showed him teaching a class made up almost entirely of men. Every time they talked about women getting benefits from the university, they showed female students, not employees of the school. They interviewed a graduate student, asking if she'd like free contraceptives, but again, as far as I could tell, she didn't work for the school. What, they couldn't go into the dining hall and ask a cafeteria lady? Or someone on the cleaning crew? (or are they outsourced jobs? Anyone know?)

The bottom line here is, how much will this mandate help get contraceptives into the hands of women who can't afford them? It's not going to cover the unemployed, self-employed, part-time employed, or those with sporadic employment. It won't help the millions of Americans without healthcare coverage. If the Federal government is so convinced this is important for the health of women, families, and the country, then make it a government program so it benefits everyone, and so employers don't have to have meltdowns about their hypocritical ethics.

Meantime, let Catholic institutions be exempt. Like any set of employer benefits, workers ought to be considering what they need and don't need when interviewing for jobs. If Catholic hospitals and schools lose good workers because of their decision, if they then lose patients and students because their work force is substandard, hey, that's the American way.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION?

by Ruth A. Sheets

This past week, the Obama administration took a bold step, not as common an occurrence as I would like, but certainly welcome at this time. All private insurance companies will be required to cover contraception for women, no co-pays, no denials of service. This includes religion-based institutions who serve and employ people not of that particular faith.

Most people, when polled, thought that women should have access to free contraception.  As of August, even working-class women will be able to plan their family size and decide when and whether they will become pregnant.  An added bonus is that the number of abortions and unwanted children will decrease significantly.

This sounds like a win-win scenario, don’t you think!  Even the right-wing conservatives should find something here to love.

Not so fast!  The Roman Catholic clergy are vowing to stop this service from being implemented in all facilities that are in any way associated with the Church.  It doesn’t matter if the person to be covered by the insurance is not herself Roman Catholic.  The Bishops’ argument is that this is a matter of freedom of religion. 

This is fascinating!  The Roman Catholic Bishops don’t seem to have a problem interfering with everyone else’s freedom of religion as they campaign against abortion and contraception despite the fact that many religious people do not agree with their stance.  They even want to criminalize it, calling women murderers.  In Pennsylvania, the bishops support the bill that is before the Assembly that forces women to have an ultrasound which they must watch, before they can have an abortion.

I guess that religious freedom only counts when the clergy get to force women to follow their archaic world view.  If one’s faith allows for a more progressive understanding, too bad. 

Does President Obama’s position on this matter mean he “hates” the Roman Catholic Church as implied by some commentators?  No, of course not, but the bishops are highly skilled at using inflammatory rhetoric.  They will vilify the current administration in the Church’s campaign against women, a centuries old effort. 

In the Roman Catholic scheme, women cannot win.  They are to submit to their husbands and the Church.  If they get pregnant, that must be God’s will.  If they are too poor to raise a child, that’s their fault.  According to the Church hierarchy, all male, of course, pregnancy is perfection for women and choosing not to be pregnant is a sin, unless a women has chosen a chaste life.

What I don’t get is the number of women who go along with this  nonsense.  Is it their penance for some imagined sin?  If the women left the Church en masse until some real changes on behalf of women were made, it wouldn’t take too long.  Women hold the Roman Catholic Church  together, just as they do most denominations, no matter what those in charge think.

I hope President Obama and his Secretary of Health and Human Services will stand their ground.  Maybe that will keep the bishops distracted long enough to allow progressives to reverse the Medieval abortion laws springing up all over the country.

A catastrophe? Really?

by Ruth Sheets

This evening on “the News Hour,” on PBS, a commentator, Mark Shields, whom I usually find to be lucid and thoughtful, made a comment that really got me thinking.  He said that the current administration’s decision to require insurance companies to fully cover contraception is a catastrophe for President Obama.  He said it was a blow to Catholics everywhere and that they might withdraw their support for Obama in the upcoming election.

I do understand that the Powers that be in the Catholic Church are expected to be outraged about offering women the ability to plan the size of their families and whether or not they will become pregnant.  That’s, of course, supposed to be God’s job, or something like that.  However, I do not see how this should negatively impact rank and file Catholics, regular church goers or not.  Survey after survey finds that Catholic women use contraception at nearly the rates of other women.  This has been true since the late 1960’s.  What is the problem?

Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to use contraception yourself, then deny the service to someone else, someone not even of your own faith the right to have it covered by their insurance? What about the concept that just because it is covered doesn’t mean you have to use it?

Catholics and their Fundamentalist Christian friends hate abortion and want to do everything they can to stamp it out in America.   One of the best ways to do that, it would seem,   is contraception.   But, this is also to be prohibited.  So what is it they actually want?  It seems that they want only married people to have sex.  . 

If you don’t stick to this lifestyle, your punishment is having a baby that you must raise or give up for adoption, even if either choice is unacceptable.  What is more, you have to do it alone with as little support as possible.  “What about the child?” you say.  “The sins of the parents are visited upon the children even to the fourth generation,” or so the Bible says. 

I am so glad that this time, the president and his administration have stood up to the Republican/Conservative bullying.  Just as bullying harms our children, and we must help them stand against it, political bullying harms our country and our people and we must stand against it.  Making more options available for women is not a catastrophe.

I hope the president and his Secretary of Health and Human Services do not back down on this one.  If those Catholics Mr. Shields evokes can’t see that the world needs some new broader thinking in the 21st Century if they and the rest of us are to survive, it is unlikely that neither Obama or any other thoughtful person will be able to reach them.  We may just have to leave them to the Romney’s and Gingrich’s of the country.  Those guys don’t have any vision or concern for the needs and rights of women either.