Obama can't let bishops set U.S. policy

Obama can't let bishops set U.S. policy
BY CAROL MARIN
Copyright by The Chicago Sun-Times
November 25, 2009
http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/1903920,CST-EDT-carol25.article


Barack Obama, the unapologetic pro-choice presidential candidate, needs to find his strong voice again on the issue now that he is president.

And he needs to stand up to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a tax-exempt religious organization, declaring that reproductive rights of women will not be sacrificed in the fight over a universal health-care bill.

Time is running out.

The acrimonious debate that surrounded this legislation on the floor of the House, coupled with shortsighted acceptance of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, set the stage for the further erosion of a woman's access to abortion for whatever the reason -- rape, incest, poverty, illness -- even beyond the limits of the current Hyde Amendment.

Catholic bishops have every right to speak their mind and preach the church's teaching. But they are engaging in outright political lobbying. Helping to write legislation that turns Catholic doctrine into law. Violating the separation of church and state.

When bishops lobby legislators, they should be required to do what all tax-exempt 501(c)3 groups have to do. Create a parallel political organization and pay taxes on the contributions they receive. And fully disclose, like every other lobbying organization -- corporate or charitable -- what they take in and what they spend to advance positions they advocate.

As a woman and a taxpayer, I rebel against the notion that a group of men more obsessed with our wombs than other significant life-and-death issues -- war, poverty, pestilence -- are given favored tax treatment in order to reduce a woman's freedom of choice.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, argued on the Web site Politico that the bishops "distorted the facts about the health reform proposal by claiming that the proposed system would have used federal dollars to cover abortion care. They're wrong."

Wrong because the original bill "included a compromise that required all plans to separate public and private dollars in the new system."

In other words, women could access the public plan but abortion coverage would come from their private dollars.

Keenan and O'Brien said the bishops, in accepting vast federal funding for Catholic hospitals and charities, "never question their own ability to lawfully manage funds from separate sources to ensure that tax dollars don't finance religious practices. Yet they reject the idea that others could do the same. This is the very definition of hypocrisy."

Hypocrisy compounded by what the bishops are doing in Washington, D.C., when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage, their other primary fixation.

There, the local archdiocese has threatened to shut down its extensive social service programs for the needy if the city goes ahead and legalizes same-sex marriage.

So much for the stated mission of protecting the vulnerable.

Chicago's Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Bishops, defended their actions this week, saying, "Issues that are moral questions before they become political remain moral questions when they become political."

But Rick Garcia, a lifelong Catholic, gay activist, and policy director at Equality Illinois rightly asks, "What's next? Do they demand that CVS or Osco's pharmacies no longer sell birth control?"

Barry Lynn, an ordained minister and executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, like Garcia runs a tax-exempt organization. But when his organization lobbies Congress, it pays taxes and files detailed disclosures.

"Under Obama, isn't transparency the order of the day?" Lynn asks.

How does he rate Obama right now?

"His rhetoric on the campaign has not yet matched his actions as president," Lynn replies.

No, it hasn't. And when it comes to choice, it must.


Comments:

carlos t mock md wrote:
I'm happy that you are speaking out against the Catholic Church when it comes to women rights--and I agree with you. But where was your anger when the Catholic Church denied the GLBT community the equal rights in Maine? I think all religions that get involved in lobbying should lose their tax exempt status!!!!
11/25/2009 12:20 PM CST on suntimes.com
Report Abuse
usconstitutionalist wrote:
Will County resident, Cival rights are provided by the Constitution, where is the right for anyone to marry?

The Chruch is not out to regulate, but out to promote its views, as any organization. You act as if the Chruch is the only one with a voice in Washington.

You point out one big issue though. Because none of these things, (Abortion, Healthcare, Marriage) are in the Constitution, why should we at any level allow the federal government to get involved? Perhaps one state wants no abortion, according to the 10th Amendment, that should be allowd. Same with gay marrage, if a state wants it, I think that's great! So long as they don't force or restrict any religion from participating or exempting itself. And healthcare is not a federal issue, it is a state issue, again the 10th Amendment applies!

Sprinkles, I will now ask you... Where is this "Seperation of Church and State" you speak of? I can't find it... And no, without it we would not live in a Theocracy, but I bet you believe we live in democarcy, so likely not worth pointing out facts to you.

I wonder how all of you anti church people, or at least pro taxing the church people feel about other organizations tax exempt status, Acorn, Greenpeace and so on. I wonder how you feel about the First Amendment, you seem to not support it, I wonder how you feel about the 2nd, the 10th, the 5th... I wounder how you feel about our Constitution our founding fathers, our great nations history... I wonder how you feel about our Republic and WE THE PEOPLE.
11/25/2009 11:42 AM CST on suntimes.com
Report Abuse
will county resident wrote:
Thank you Carol for pointing the total hypocracy of the catholic church. Gays are asking for the CIVAL right of marriage. The church's have the right to do what they want in the church -and not have a right to regulate the lives of those who are not of their religon.
11/25/2009 11:24 AM CST on suntimes.com
Report Abuse
sprinkles wrote:
Agree wholeheartedly with your piece Carol. By the way, without a separation of church and state we would live in a Theocracy. The Taliban lives under that belief system. No church rule, and no church lobby without giving up tax-exempt status.
By the way d.j.kern you are aware of the length of the human gestation period right? And to equate this outright political lobbying with what the rev. Wright said from the pulpit is disengenuous.
11/25/2009 11:19 AM CST on suntimes.com
Report Abuse
d.j.kern wrote:
Carol,Amazing that you liberal ladies cry if a certain bug will become extict.Have you ever seen a 10 month old fetus fighting to get away from the vacuum try ing to pull it out to die? As far as tax-exempt status; you would also have to take it away from Jackson,the rev. Wright and a few others.Yes there were some bad priests,but unlike others,no Catholic I know was out every day defending them.Instead they were as horrified as non-Catholics.Defending life is one of the most important tenents of our church.(and for you doubters,that also means;no death penalty)
11/25/2009 10:51 AM CST on suntimes.com
Report Abuse
mark brumley wrote:
Some common sense would help in this matter. The Catholic bishops aren't "setting policy". They're exercising their right to contribute to the discussion of public policy. They have only as much "clout" as they have people who agree with them and who are willing to make their voices heard.

The issue of abortion is by its very nature a question of "public morality" and social policy, not merely of private morality and certainly not a sectarian, religious issue. This is true regardless of whether you think a woman's right over her body includes the right to terminate the life of an unborn child or whether you hold that an unborn child has a right to life that limits, for a time, the woman's exercise of her right over her body. There is nothing necessarily religious about opposing abortion, even though some people's opposition to abortion is motivated by their religious values, just as their opposition to racism is.

What's more the question of whether, under the rubric of "health care", taxpayers should be forced to pay for abortions is certainly one that Catholic bishops have a right to address. It is also not a specifically religious issue, nor is opposition requiring taxpayers to pay for abortions specifically religious.
11/25/2009 10:44 AM CST on suntimes.com
Report Abuse
jim f wrote:
Carol...when the President doesn't know right from wrong and thinks killing babies is just fine and dandy, doesn't it seem reasonable that religious leaders would try to bring him back to the side of truth?
11/25/2009 10:35 AM CST on suntimes.com
Report Abuse
jesse, hammond wrote:
I recall Obama insisting that the health care plan would not fund abortions. What's wrong with the Bishops asking for a little guarantee? Whatever your opinion on the matter, I don't want my tax money to subsidize abortions. Of course, we all know that it was all a ploy and some on the left always wanted abortion included as part of the plan. Why do you think they are fighting this so hard? Somebody has to keep the abortion mills running. I never considered abortion a political issue. It’s been a moral one for me. I agree with Francis George. Shame on the left for trying to sneak one in AGAIN!
11/25/2009 10:30 AM CST on suntimes.com
Report Abuse
usconstitutionalist wrote:
You can do what ever you want with your body. Over eat, smoke, drink, have an abortion, I don't care.... I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE FORCED TO PAY FOR ANY OF IT THROUGH TAX DOLLARS! Yes, if I buy insurance, I have made a choice to put myself in a pool with others who may not live as i live, but I'm not being forced to by my government. This is a big part of the problem with any government run healthcare. It is unConstitutional! Our founding document does not provide the government with such power.

What is also interesting is that you bring up this "seperation of church and state." Where do you get that from? There is no "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution. There is the First Amendment which allows the church to have a voice, and there are laws that keep the government out of the church, but nothing that keeps the church out of the government.

You should educate yourself before misslead your readers.
11/25/2009 9:21 AM CST on suntimes.com
Report Abuse
pselkins wrote:
Actually after reading the story about Kennedy my thought was that the Bishop should be arrested for extortion of a public official. I also found it amusing that the Bishop was surprised the story came to light. It's always a little embarrassing when someone shines a spotlight on attempts at manipulation.