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, but in the amendment's place in our government; Stupak-Pitts is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and furthermore represents the codification of principles supported by a morally questionable institution: the Catholic Church.
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.
Gordon D. Newby, professor of Jewish, Islamic, and Comparative Studies at Emory University, articulated the issue 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..." 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 - and there are plenty of religions whose followers fall into this category.
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.
There is little doubt that the Christian religion was a major factor in drafting and passing this amendment. Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, spent the Friday before the vote discussing the issue with Washington's former archbishop, now a Cardinal in Rome, and spent the evening negotiating with representatives from the USCCB in her Capitol suite. Bart Stupak, co-author of the amendment, rents a room 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, the other co-author, is the chairman of the 'Values Action Team', a conservative group which is closely tied to the Christian right. 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 percent Catholic?
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?
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 who's god?
