RD contributor Frances Kissling weighed in recently on federal-funding of abortions and the high-profile attempts by self-proclaimed "religious progressives" like Jim Wallis "to use healthcare reform to push for further restrictions on abortion."
Curiously, despite the pro-choice community's attempts to reach common ground and compromise by keeping the status quo on the federal funding of abortions, some vocal "pro-life progressive" leaders now demand more.
Here's how it begins. Go to Salon to see where it ends:
Sept. 14, 2009 | It was discouraging to hear Barack Obama, the man I supported for president, announce so resolutely during his speech to Congress last week that "under our [health care] plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion." It was infuriating, however, that before the morning cock could crow following the speech Jim Wallis of the antiabortion organization Sojourners was claiming that the president's remarks on abortion were just what "a broad coalition of the faith community had asked for -- no federal funding for abortions."I had been prepared for Obama to close the door on a health care reform package that would include funding abortions for women who rely on Medicaid for health coverage. Low-income women already lost that right 30 years ago when the Supreme Court upheld the Hyde Amendment. I believe a principled compromise to maintain the status quo on abortion is justified if it gets us better health care for millions of men and women and security from the rapaciousness of the insurance industry. And no pro-choice organization wants to bear the responsibility for health care reform failing. And so, tacitly, pro-choice leaders have basically accepted that the Hyde Amendment restrictions, as well as those that deny federal workers, women in the military and women who get health care on Indian reservations funding for abortion, would be reflected in the health care package.
Unfortunately, the good will shown by the pro-choice community has not been met with a good-faith effort by Wallis and his friends. They now hope to use the president's promise as a way to press for further restrictions on abortion coverage in the final health care legislation. As one moderate pro-life leader told me, "It is going to be a long fall." All the talk about finding common ground on abortion and the emergence of moderate pro-lifers is floundering as Wallis and a few others prepare to push Congress and the White House for further concessions. "[The president's] commitment to these principles," said Wallis, "means we can now work together to make sure that they are consistently and diligently applied to any final health care legislation." For Wallis, that means that "no person should be forced to pay for someone else's abortion and that public funds cannot be used to pay for elective abortions."
More here.
Tags: abortion, common ground, frances kissling, jim wallis, obama, progressives, salon, sojourners
I really question the true motives of pro-lifers who did not protest George W. Bush's promise that there would be no federally-funded abortion, and, yet, President George W. Bush retained abortion within the Medicaid program. Pro-lifers were totally accepting of this at the time. I recently asked a pro-lifer about this and the answer was: "There was absolutely nothing President Bush could do about this; we understood his dilemma." Why do pro-lifers refuse to understand the "dilemma" in which President Obama finds himself?
I wonder why the religious right follows the opinions of the Pope? The question of abortion is not as simple as many people see it.
The debate on abortion is merely opinion. Moral values are based on either self-centered, God-based or society-based non-provable basic assumptions. For the Catholic viewpoint let me excerpt from the free ebook series “And Gulliver Returns” (httå://andgulliverreturns.info) The Abortion chapter in Book 4 elaborates the pros and cons of the 3 ethical assumptions. Let me attempt to summarize the changing Catholic position. From the 13th Century the views of St. Thomas Aquinas, that male embryos got their souls about 4 weeks after conception, females somewhat later, were the standard. His was a Christionized view of Aristotle’s ideas.
The crux of the modern idea, that the soul is infused at conception, might be traced to St. Paul (Romans 5:12) who started the ball rolling on ‘original sin.’ 500 years later St. Augustine popularized the idea. But the Blessed Virgin was born without original sin, her Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX declared this in 1854. Then in 1870 he decided that popes were infallible in church doctrine. So was his pronouncement retroactive?
Recent popes have generally followed Pius’s idea that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception. This brings with it some theological problems. Since many fertilized ova never implant in the uterus what happens to these little souls?
If you are really interested in the question, see the aforementioned chapter. It is done in detail.
The human species theoretically has the option to voluntarily limit its population to a sustainable level it it decides to. No other species has this option, they must all rely on competition or war or famine or disease or predators to limit their populations. Things can get more complicated for humans when they come to the conclusion that people of other religions need more limitations on their population.
I agree with that! Besides, abortion may cause hazard to the health of the patient and cash advance would not be enough to cover the medical expenses if ever the operation failed!
This is a very touchy subject in Utah.
Forex Investment Manager
Children are gifts of God, adn hence to me, aborting them is a serious crime. If you don't want the child, don't craete him/her in the first place. Why should the child pay with his/her life for your error?
-- Mark
Infrared sauna
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.