The Washington Post (U.S, January
15, 2010
Are Catholic bishops too powerful?
By Jon O'Brien
It's rarely a pretty sight when the internal workings of the political process in Washington DC are held up to the light. But what has happened during the health care debate has been uglier than normal.
At the outset, a truce of sorts was declared. Pro-choice and anti-choice advocates had a tacit agreement that they would not use the debate over health care reform to further their own agendas. The agreement seemed to be holding until the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) decided it was not happy with the status quo and pressured Congress to further restrict access to abortion. Then, as the saying goes, all hell broke loose.
On many issues, including social justice, care for immigrants and the affordability of health coverage, the USCCB maintains sound positions. However, rather than using its political capital to ensure these issues were included in health care reform, the USCCB chose to hold the health care debate hostage over accessibility to abortion care for American women.
Hours before the House of Representatives was scheduled to hold a final vote on a health care bill that, according to the Democratic leadership, would not to include any last minute amendments, the USCCB's lobbyists swooped in and said they would not support any bill that did impose further restrictions on federal funding for abortion. Using a Catholic Democrat from Michigan, Representative Bart Stupak, to advance their cause, the bishops forced an anti-choice amendment to be added to the final bill. Rather than politely agreeing to disagree with the bishops and whipping members of the Democratic caucus to support the (pro-choice) party platform, the Democratic leadership caved and allowed an amendment that may severely impact the ability of many millions of women to purchase insurance coverage for a legal medical procedure.
As the day's negotiations stretched into the evening, we began to learn the full extent of the bishops' attempts to influence the debate. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick phoned Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from Rome to urge the inclusion of the Stupak anti-choice language. Another legislator was reportedly contacted by as many as three bishops. According to the Associated Press, Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley previously raised the matter with President Barack Obama while standing near the altar at Senator Edward Kennedy's funeral Mass in September. Before the vote and since, the bishops have sent letters to Congress and instructed parishes to drum up opposition to coverage for abortion. Their lobbyists were even allowed in closed-door sessions with the House Leadership on the day of the final House floor vote. In these meetings and conversations, the USCCB was threatening to bring the whole bill down unless their demands were met.
In the Senate, the bishops used a Methodist Senator from Nebraska, Ben Nelson. Originally, Senator Nelson maintained that the abortion language in the health-care bill was not a make-or-break factor in his vote. However, after pressure from the bishops, he hardened his stance on the abortion language, stating that he would not vote for a health-care bill unless the restrictions on insurance coverage for abortions were tightened. Senator Nelson even held up the submission of his amendment so that the bishops would have extra time to review its language before he brought it to the floor. Has the U.S. become a theocratic state?
Eventually, the Nelson amendment was voted down, 54 to 45, and compromise introduced by Senator Bob Casey was added to the bill, without the support of the bishops.
In a previous piece in On Faith, Sister Mary Ann Walsh noted correctly that serious problems are created when "the gamesmanship in Congress relates more to politics than health." Well, Congress is a political body but, as a representative of the USCCB, Sister Walsh should ensure that her own organization pays heed to that concern. In this process, the US bishops have been more focused on playing politics than the health and well-being of women.
In the politics-health dichotomy that Sr. Walsh suggests, an overwhelming majority of Americans stand on the side of health. After all, they know it is women, especially poor women, who will suffer most if the restrictions on abortion are increased in the final health care reform bill. Sr. Walsh laments an imagined outcome where doctors will be required to perform abortions over their personal objections to the procedure. Not a single voice in this debate is requesting this provision in health care reform. In reality, what the USCCB is demanding is a restriction of the rights of patients who know they need an abortion, and the rights of doctors who want to provide this legal medical procedure. This is hardly a respect for the conscience of patients and doctors that the USCCB purports to uphold. Again, it's politics trumping health care in the bishops' demands.
Sixty-four House Democrats did not stand on the side of women's health when they voted to include the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the bill. However, polling in the districts of four of those members who voted in favor of Stupak-Pitts showed that those members' votes did not reflect the views of the people who elected them. In Maine's 2nd (Michael Michaud), Ohio's 9th (Marcy Kaptur), Pennsylvania's 14th (Mike Doyle) and Texas' 16th (Silvestre Reyes) the results showed that combining those who either support direct federal coverage or private coverage that would be included in federal plans produce majorities that favor making abortion coverage available in a government-subsidized health insurance plan: Pennsylvania (69%), Maine (61%), Ohio (56%) and Texas (51%).
Allowing the bishops to wield power over Capitol Hill has proven dangerous this time, and it could prove dangerous again. Just imagine for a moment what health care will look like when the bishops are finished. There will be absolutely no access to abortion--even in cases of rape or incest. 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 embryonic stem-cell research. There will be nothing that doesn't meet the litmus tests prescribed by a small group of men who don't represent American Catholics, let alone the American people.
As the final negotiations take place on the health care reform bill, policymakers can consider the desires of the USCCB. However, they should only consider these desires alongside the opinions and needs of the American Catholics and the American people. If the policymakers, as well as the bishops, put politics aside for just a moment and considered the plight of many American citizens, I am confident that the need for women to access safe and affordable abortion would quickly be included in health care reform as was agreed when Congress began the debate. When the final bill reaches the president's desk, I hope it does.
Jon O'Brien is president of Catholics for Choice