Chris Matthews: Why are Catholic bishops on Capitol Hill lobbying Congress?

posted at 7:54 pm on November 10, 2009 by Allahpundit

Because … they’re American citizens, Chris? Entitled to petition for the redress of grievances? Don’t get grumpy just because, for once, they’re making life difficult for your pal Nancy. What’s doubly strange here is that he follows up by clarifying that it was merely the bishops’ lay staff, not the boys themselves, who were leaning on Pelosi about the Stupak amendment, which seems to make a big difference to him for reasons I don’t understand. If you object to religious lobbying of politicians, what does it matter if the lobbyists are wearing robes or not?

They’d better keep up the pressure, too, because pro-choicers are “prepared to stop at nothing.” More demagoguery from the president of NOW:

She said she understood the president’s frustration in wanting to pass health care reform, but “it is not acceptable for him to achieve that goal by pushing women back into the back alleys to die.” And the anti-abortion amendment added to the health care reform legislation “does just that.”…

“The president has handed us a bill that reverses Roe v. Wade,” she told ABC News, condemning the amendment originally drafted by Stupak and Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Penn. “Stupak-Pitts is such a sweeping denial of insurance coverage of abortion for women that it in fact in essence makes abortion unavailable to women. In Roe v Wade the court said the government may not restrict women from exercising their choice to have an abortion and Stupak-Pitts clearly stops women from doing that.”…

“There’s no question that Hillary Clinton would have fought for our rights,” she says.

Aren’t the pro-choicers going to end up winning simply because they can play the trump card of having five votes on the Supreme Court (Kennedy usually sides with the Roe crowd)? Why would Blue Dogs risk derailing the bill by digging in on an amendment that’s likely to get tossed by a judge after an inevitable lawsuit is filed? Or is that actually an argument Pelosi will use to persuade pro-choicers — that no one expects Stupak’s amendment to survive constitutional scrutiny so they might as well embrace it and wait for Kennedy to take care of business? Click the image to watch.

matt-clergy2


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

KyMouse on November 11, 2009 at 8:43 AM

Well said.

My wife volunteers at a crisis pregnancy center and over half of the girls who come in are under pressure to abort by their parents (or they’ll be kicked out of the house), boyfriends (or they’ll be dumped) or husbands (or they’ll be divorced. I have always followed pro-life issues rather closely and never gave much thought to the extent of how “free” the “choice” is for many women until my wife shared some of her experiences.

Here’s one for you: there is a public high school in our area with an outstanding academic reputation. It is located in a very wealthy area that is pretty conservative (it’s in Tom Delay’s old district). There are more than a few boys in the school who contribute to an “abortion fund” that they can draw from to get things “taken care of.”

There’s a reason that support for abortion polls better among men than it does women (look it up). AnnInCA’s friends do not represent women as a whole, that’s for sure.

CDeb on November 11, 2009 at 9:01 AM

“The clergy should stay off Capitol Hill.”

And Libtards should stay off of major news channels.

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 11, 2009 at 9:11 AM

Doesn’t the amendment just maintain the status quo of not allowing federal funds to go towards abortion? So, people who want abortions have to pay for them out of pocket, just like they already do.What’s unconstitutional about that?BadgerHawk on November 10, 2009 at 7:58 PM

–It does more than that. Under current law, some states pay for abortions not covered by Medicare and they use segregated funds to do that. This amendment would not let them do that going forward. It also may stop many employer provided health insurance programs from offering abortion, because employers can\’t take advantage of a $10 billion government-provided fund to cover early retirees and may not be able to take advantage of wellness grants provided by the government. It also requires, in some situations, two almost-identical plans to be offered on the exchanges–one with abortion coverage and the other without.

Jimbo3 on November 11, 2009 at 10:21 AM

I’m a Catholic and I wrote them to stay out of politicking or I will stop contributing to their charities. They may be anti-abortion, but they are pro-PelosiCare. They have no grasp of economics and would be happy to see this country descend into a socialist-redistributionist hellhole. Their advocacy is limited to a few social issues and their proposed means of achieving their ends is right in line with what the Dems propose. I suppose they can keep lobbying, but I can also stop sending their causes several hundred dollars every year. I’ve had it with bleeding hearts with empty heads.

PD Quig on November 11, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Tax churches that lobby just like any lobbying group gets taxed.

Moesart on November 11, 2009 at 11:03 AM

I agree with PD Quig entirely.

Whenever the Catholic Church (or a division of it like the College of American Bishops) engages in politics, IT IS ALWAYS WRONG.

I am one of the minority of Catholics in my parish who consistently votes pro-life.

Like all Christian churches, the Catholic Church is part Gdo and part man.

The God part is always good and right and the man part sometimes makes mistakes.

But, at least the Catholic Church, for all of its many mistakes, is unabashedly pro-life, unlike some Protestant denominations, which are pro – Roe vs. Wade.

How a Christian denomination could be pro – abortion simply baffles me.

molonlabe28 on November 11, 2009 at 11:46 AM

First, does Chris Mathews get upset when Catholic Charities and Bishops lobby Congress for amnesty?

Second, there is a big difference between “outlawing abortion” and mandating that it not be covered by a health insurance plan. I have my doubts that Kennedy would rule against prohibiting cost sharing for a medical procedure that is not necessary to save one’s life (might rule differently if Amendment is too broad). Have there been any states that have outlawed insurance covering abortions? I.E. Yes you can have an abortion, but you have to pay for the procedure out of your own pocket. If yes, what has been the fate of those laws in court?

Conservative in NOVA on November 11, 2009 at 11:54 AM

But, at least the Catholic Church, for all of its many mistakes, is unabashedly pro-life, unlike some Protestant denominations, which are pro – Roe vs. Wade.

How a Christian denomination could be pro – abortion simply baffles me.

molonlabe28 on November 11, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Um, can you name a denominations that formally teaches that it is superior to the civil authority… that the civil authority should function at its behest… or that teaches it is a sin to believe that it should not be “the religion of the state to the exclusion of all other forms of worship”?

Now, when that bishop in 2008 was threatening RC with the possible loss of salvation for voting pro-Choice, a lot of attaboys went up around here… I asked what happens when they start making “other” moral issues a matter of “sin”?

Since the post-Council documents of Vatican II teach that lay Catholics must “submit will and intellect” to BOTH pope and Bishop when they teach clearly and consistently on matters of faith or morals… there isn’t much room to complain about the bishops’ (or the vatican’s) complicity here.

mankai on November 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Tax churches that lobby just like any lobbying group gets taxed.

Moesart on November 11, 2009 at 11:03 AM

I could be wrong—and correct me if I am—but I would guess that many, if not most, lobbying organizations are nonprofit and therefore not taxed.

MassVictim on November 11, 2009 at 2:31 PM

I am one of the minority of Catholics in my parish who consistently votes pro-life.

molonlabe28 on November 11, 2009 at 11:46 AM

How do you know how the majority of your fellow parishioners vote? The secrecy of the ballot is like the seal of the confessional.

MassVictim on November 11, 2009 at 2:36 PM

“Stupak-Pitts is such a sweeping denial of insurance coverage of abortion for women that it in fact in essence makes abortion unavailable to women. In Roe v Wade the court said the government may not restrict women from exercising their choice to have an abortion and Stupak-Pitts clearly stops women from doing that.”…

“There’s no question that Hillary Clinton would have fought for our rights,” she says.

That is such a load of crap. There is a BIG difference between banning abortion and saying that FEDERAL money and the money of TAXPAYERS can’t be used for someone else’s ‘mistakes’ via public insurance. I’ve seen no language in the amendment that bans someone from paying for baby killing services out of pocket.

I’m sorry, but if they are going to pass this monstrosity of a bill, there are quite a few other things this bill should ban the coverage of. This thing SHOULDN’T be a Federally run and operated ‘Cadillac’ insurance plan like many seem to think it should be. It should allow for coverage of catastrophic illness and ‘actual’ emergencies (i.e. if you go to the emergency room with a sore throat the doc can say ‘nope, pay out of your pocket for that one, buddy’)and that is IT.
It shouldn’t allow for routine doctors visits. I’m not even so wild about it covering maternity care because if you are so broke that you can’t afford insurance/out of pocket fees for OB services, should you really be getting pregnant in the first place? (yes, these are all reasons the government shouldn’t even be in the health care equation)

I would rather it not be passed and signed into law at all, but if they are hell bent on getting into the insurance game that is all they could cover with any kind of cost effectiveness. (even then it would go into insolvency eventually because it is the Federal government we are talking about here. )

I should point out I LOVE the jab in bold. The left is splintering and they are slowly falling out of love with Obama. I love it. 2010 could be a very good year.

MannyT-vA on November 11, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2