One of the consequences of the blogosphere and cable news is that it is very easy to only engage those who share similar concerns, or those with a similar point of view. So, lately, I have been paying attention to conservative Catholic sites that opposed health care reform because they thought it did not do enough to restrict abortion funding.
This morning, the Washington Post brings us up to date about the sentiments driving the pro-choice movement. "It really pains me to conclude that on balance this law is not good for women," Terry O’Neill, the president of the National Organization for Women told the Post. "It’s health care that has been achieved on the backs of women and at the expense of women." Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, had the same talking points: "We’re very disappointed…Now women will be worse off under health-care reform." Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, directed her anger more clearly in the president’s direction, saying, ‘What we had hoped for when the president was elected was that this would be an opportunity to break down the many obstacles to abortion. That instead, one year into the Obama presidency, we have moved the line further away is just stunning." O’Neill delivered the coup de grace: "I’ve heard women complain very loudly ‘This would never have happened if Hillary had been president.’"
If the approach, but not the content, sounds familiar, it is because this kind of dire warning based on worst case scenarios characterized the arguments coming from groups like the National Right-to-Life Committee and the Family Research Council. NRLC issued a statement that said "Obama is joined at the hip to the Abortion Lobby" but evidently nobody told the abortion rights groups quoted in the Post article about that fact. I mention both NRLC and the Family Research Council because they were joined on a conference call in the days before the vote by the USCCB, a decision that cost the USCCB a great deal of credibility in the eyes of lawmakers. But, NRLC has as much in common with NOW as it does with the Family Research Council. Groups like NOW and NRLC, because they focus narrowly on one issue, tend to lose perspective. In fact, contra NOW, the law will be good for women. And, in fact, contra NRLC, no the bill will not result in federal funding of abortions.
But, more than a loss of perspective is at work here. The comments by pro-choice leaders in this morning’s papers are, in part, an attempt to get the Obama administration’s attention. But, even more, this is about fundraising. The reason both NOW and NRLC adopt the worst case scenario analysis of prospective legislation is that the easiest way to raise money from your base is to sound an alarm. A letter saying that the new law really does not change much regarding abortion is not going to bring in much money. But, calling the President "the most pro-abortion president in history" raises money and an email alert with links to the Post article will do the same for NOW. It is corrupt: The truth is sacrificed so that DC-based lobbyists and activists can pay for their swanky offices and expense paid trips.
I went to the NRLC website this morning to see if they had denounced the violence and intimidation that has been directed at certain congressmen in the past few days. I hope that the bishops will also say something publicly. We do not advance the pro-life cause by threatening to kill Congressman Bart Stupak’s children. Nor, by cutting a gas line to the home of Congressman Tom Perriello's brother which was wrongfully placed on a website as the congressman’s home address. (Not that cutting the gas line at the congressman's correct address would be acceptable!) Bad enough that many Tea Party activists shouted racial slurs and homophobic epithets at members of Congress last weekend. Vandalism is a crime and it is not protected by the First Amendment the way speech is. The FBI will not have to sniff around long to find those members of the Tea Party movement who were active in the militia movements of the 1990s. Walking around the protest rally the other day, you could literally feel the dark, almost Dickensian mood of the crowd. Political and religious leaders need to tamp that mood down, not fan its flames.
Michael Sean Winters
As far as your observations on what NARAL and NRLC, et al, I agree. They have more interest in fundraising than seeking a solution to the controversy over abortion. That is why they focus on Roe - it is an unsolvable problem. It's why the March of Dimes switched from polio to birth defects - birth defects can't be cured (alhtough sadly, they the children can be aborted, so you hear less from the March - that and a dime doesn't buy much anymore).
The brokest man in DC is the one who actually has a solution to any problem - solutions don't let you keep eating.
Realistically what can one expect here? Abortion is super- controversial. This article fundementally misrepresent the extremely powerful political dynamics of abortion.
Lost prospective is the trivialazation of the institution of abortion. In no way can anyone with even pedestrain knowledge of American politics expect anything less than fierce oppossion from all sides on the subject of abortion. Abortion is and always will be, highly combustible, political fire-storm material and destructively toxic in its aftermath. Name-calling does not quench this fire, name-call intensifies the controversy.
Yet flat-footedly the Democratic party, the news media, and numersous other organizations are suddenly shocked and surpised by this latest intense flare-up.
These organization have systematically for decades purged themselves of anti-abortion sentiment making them pure pro-abortion country clubs. But like the slavery issue in 19th century, the abortion issue just will not go away. These organization are very insular on the issue of abortion and fail to grasp its hugh significance.
Unaware and unprepared the Democratic party and other organizations willy-nilly provokes intenese outrage that they are not able to foresee, explain or undersand.
Unfortuantely the abortion controversy shows no sign of ever being resolved. But like the anti-slavery moverment the anti-abortion movement is growing and is not going away. The Democartic party and other organizations badly underestimate the depth of anti-abortion sentiment in our country.
If the 300 bishops let A.B Chaput's position stand as the Catholic episcopal position so be it.... but please don't blame the media for your very low standing.
A/B Chaput emailed me that I'm angry .. no.. I'm annoyed though and I so identify with Stupak, I too am a tall Catholic family man with gray hair... .. .
May Holy Week bring us all greater PEACE.
Most people do oppose the bill - however about a quarter of the opposition want either single payer or a public option. The remainder, by themselves, are not a majority.
BTW, Rep. Steve King was just interviewed on CNN. He was asked to explain his "Mussolini off the balcony" show the other day. As the network played a tape of his "off the hook" behavior King claimed he really didn't do what the clip showed him doing and then he denounced angry opponents who have made threats against legislators.
There's a big difference between this and being passionate about your politics. Michael is correct: the illogic of the reactions mask some other politics of moneyed interest and resentment.
Ms. Evans, your cited poll (if it was good that Congress passed it) strikes me as different from the question of whether people like the contents of the bill. The last CNN poll I saw asking about the bill's content garnered 39% approval to 59% disapproval (this the Sunday of the vote).
Mr. Bindner, as usual your analysis is so far out in left field that it hardly merits argument. A majority of the opponents oppose because its not liberal enough? Please provide a link for that poll. I will say, however, that I saw Reihan Salam at National Review actually suggested that the Dems may use the bill to do what you say - eventually remove the middle man and just enact a single payer system. He also tempered that possibility by arguing that by then, the cost of the bill would be so out of whack, it would actually yield a conservative form of single payer - high ricks pools ONLY for catastrophic care for the very poor.
Michael wrote this: "Most people do oppose the bill - however about a quarter of the opposition want either single payer or a public option." I'm not certain why Jeff(back from his two hour Holy Week sabbatical) wrote that Michael claimed that "a majority of the opponents oppose because its not liberal enough."
I do think that we've wandered from the Catholic-focus on the issues that make this space different from, say, the WASHINGTON POST blog sites.
B) Mr. Bindner's attempted point was to make the "conservative" (for lack of a better word) opponents of the bill into a small minority by dividing the opposition into various camps. Opposition, to me, means people who voted against the bill. name me 2/3 of anyone that didn't vote for the bill because it was TOO liberal.
C) Who said I was taking a Sabbatical. I said I hoped Holy Week would bring us ALL some perspective. That doesn't mean I will take a vow silence with respect to the issue.
"
I'm genuinely tired of this whole debate & am pretty sure commenting on this blog won't help," and then wished us a meaningful Holy Week, I thought that meant you were taking some time away from contributing to the AMERICA website. My apologies.
Just to be clear, what Michael wrote was that, while a majority opposed the bill, about 25% of those that opposed it did so because they wanted a public option or a single-payer plan. That brought the percentage of Americans who opposed the bill on other grounds below the majority threshold. Did I read his comment incorrectly?
I do agree with you about one thing: public opinion is fickle. I'm sure they haven't read the whole law-but when do they? Nevertheless, if the GOP wants to hing its electoral fortunes on attacking the law then, "good luck." November is a long way away. Meanwhile, let's pass the labor reform bill and get serious about immigration reform.
Your calls for rational civil dialogue should be directed to (1) the Republicans in congress, and (2) those loyal, upstanding amurrrikens called teapartiers!
MSW - what did you think of Sr. Mary Ann Walsh's bit as reported by Fr. Martin? Seemed to respond directly to what you've been saying, no? I have to say that as nasty as the current political climate is, has it gotten better or worse, than say, in the time of our founding fathers? Sure, there've been no duels (that I know of), but Jefferson did hire whats-his-name to slander Adams... And the burning/lynched effigies during the ABC affair... Tough call.
As for the suggestion of prayer, I attempted something in that vein earlier and was lambasted for breaking a supposed sabbatical. But my feeling remains that the whatever the "victory" of the bill was, the debate has left us in many ways better and many ways worse. I think the country is fatigued by this debate, & I think we need some time to be still. i would be most disappointed in Pres. Obama if he chose to act on a highly partisan topic in this time of enflamed emotion.
I did not, for the record, accuse all conservatives pro-lifers of authoritarianism, only the subset that make threats and throw rocks through windows (hence the reference to Krystalnaught - which I still believe is apt).
If I were still an active GOP member (I was previously an intern to Senator Jepsen and one of his right to life staffers back in the day - which gives away my age), I would me more concerned about purging the authoritarians who are making the movement look bad than worrying about what the Democrats were saying about us. You should be concerned about this too.