An article I wrote for the Johns Hopkins Newsletter. As always, I ask for grammatical corrections and factual inaccuracies; if you disagree with my opinion, please say so in a constructive way. The article needs to be submitted in a few hours (I was asked to write it on late notice) so I appreciate any corrections that can be made ASAP!! Thank you!!
The DKos community has an excellent record of pointing out and helping me correct mistakes in these articles, so keep your record going strong.
I do ask that people keep one thought in mind, and it only applies to the second sentence: I list the 'causes' of abortion, but leave out rape. Should I include it? Is it necessary/unnecessary? If necessary, how should I include it without changing the overall sentence structure?
Thanks in advance to anyone offering help and advice!!
The Real Problem with Stupak-Pitts
I’m not a fan of the abortion debate. I find it to be a worthless and polarizing scream-fest that diverts attention away from the source of the problem (failed sex-education programs, access to contraception) and toward the consequence (unwanted pregnancy). My stance is simple: if you wish to solve the problem, address the source.
Consequently, my grievance with the Stupak-Pitts Amendment of the House’s health care bill lies not in the moral dilemma of abortion, the constitutional authority of the government, or the issue of women’s rights; Stupak-Pitts is a violation of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
The Friday before The Affordable Health Care for America Act passed the House, representatives from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) along with several "faith-based advocacy groups" met with House Democrats to pressure a vote on an amendment which would limit private health insurance companies from participating in the government exchange if they provided funding for abortions. Needless to say, the Democrats yielded and allowed the vote to take place, thus inserting the Stupak-Pitts Amendment into the health care bill and passing it through the final vote.
I hold a strong contempt for the Catholic Church. Besides being known for such Christ-like acts as banning children’s books, covering up sex abuse scandals, furthering the AIDS problem in Africa, and funding massive anti-gay rights campaigns, they have a rather long history of promoting the subjugation of women, most noticeable in their patriarchal system of leadership.
So why – after all of the scandal and shame that the Catholic Church has knowingly subjected itself to – would House Democrats consider their advice relevant in a debate about women’s rights? About anyone’s rights?
What the House has done is a gross violation of the Establishment Clause; they voted on and passed an amendment that took the morality of a single religion – one known for being anything but ‘moral’ – and made it into law.
And there is little doubt that religion was a major factor in drafting and passing this amendment. Bart Stupak rents a room and participates with events at the C Street House run by ‘The Family’, a Christian organization known for its fundamentalist and radically distorted view of Jesus Christ. Joseph Pitts is the chairman of the ‘Values Action Team’, a conservative group which is closely tied to the Christian right. Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, spent the Friday before the vote on the phone to Rome with Washington’s former archbishop, now a Cardinal, and spent the evening negotiating with representatives from the USCCB in her Capitol suite. Henry Waxman, speaking about the USCCB involvement in the health care debate, said, "I would like the Bishops, who as I understand it want a bill, to help us work out a plan where we don't have winners and losers."
Pardon me, congress, but since when does the Catholic Church get to assist in ‘working out a plan’ that affects the health care and reproductive rights of a country that is only 22% Catholic?
Beyond just the Establishment Clause, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment also represents a serious attack on religious freedom. Gordon D. Newby, professor of Jewish, Islamic, and Comparative Studies at Emory University, made the point clear in a recent article when she wrote, "The recently passed House health care bill might be paving the way to enact religious discrimination into law; on the important and fundamental issues of life and health, many religious Americans will be unable to live and act according to their own religious consciences and beliefs..."
Judaism says that a fetus is not a person until ‘the head leaves the womb’ and permits abortions to save the mother’s life; with the exception of a few Orthodox authorities, the religion supports reproductive rights for women.
Sunni Islam believes that a fetus takes its soul 4 months after conception, and permits abortion up to that point. Many Muslim jurists will also allow abortion after ‘ensoulment’ in cases where the mother’s life is at risk.
Buddhists, with the exception of Tibetan Buddhists, hold a very open view on abortion, although the Dalai Lama himself said that "abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance. Hindus, although believing that the destruction of a fetus prevents its soul from participating on its karmic journey, often find abortion permissible to save the mother’s life.
As Professor Newby said, the passage of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment by the House represents a placement of Catholic authority above the religious freedom of Americans who do not share the church’s view of abortion.
The United States is not a theocracy. Before even free speech, the First Amendment explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." For the House to allow Catholic bishops any authority on policy making – especially on an issue so divisive in American political debate – is positively absurd and completely inexcusable. This country was founded on religious freedom, and there is no reason why a single church’s doctrine should take precedence in public policy. The government has allowed the leadership of an organization which permits neither women nor sexual activity among its ranks to legislate the reproductive rights of millions of non-Catholic women.
One nation, under god, indivisible?