In reform debate, 'pro-lifers undermine their cause'

Against these loud broadcasters of a-privilege-not-a-right, I who have no political clout, or willingness toward punditry, simple offer up Chapter 25 of the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, and Chapter 6 of the Gospel According to Saint Luke. In this zeal to harden hearts, and parse charity, the age old wisdom: ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est... has been trampled on and lost in the dust of certitude. More time spent away from the podium and the camera and microphone, in prayer, meditation, and lectio divina might produce a different response. A different caliber of Catholic.

Excellent!

The pro life movement lost all credibility with me when bishops started in on the 'undermining the rights of private insurance companies'. Private insurance policies already cover elective abortions. It seems to me that if one was truly pro life one would be advocating for a universal federal system that is prohibited from funding abortions through the Hyde ammendment.

You are absolutely correct Michael when you state these conservative bishops are giving NARAL what they want. A way around the Hyde ammendment.

"In short, as Catholics we are called to witness to the fullness of the church's social teaching, not merely to become shills for the Republican Party."

Micheal, you are right on the money. The Republican bishops and their minions aren't crossing the line between the Church and the Republican Party. They are obliterating it! The Republican Catholic Church will damage the Church, this nation and the pro-life cause. It is our duty as Catholics, Americans and pro-lifers to oppose them.

Steve

On this question of 'right to health care' -- 'right' from whom or what? If it is proposed as a 'right' coming from the government it is directly outside the American Constitution. There the 'rights' are against the government specifically, and not from the government at all.

All this fuss over abortion (and rightly so), but where's the similar fuss over the death penalty? Unjust wars?

It's ridiculous to blame all of the uninsured on a failure of the free market. Many of the uninsured simply choose not to get themselves health insurance even though they can afford it. In all things economic, the free market works best. This hardly means it is perfect; the government has a role to fine tune it.

One thing that has not been talked about as far as I know is an IRS tracking for those who receive health care benefits from the government. There is no reason to assume that everyone who receives free health care from the government at some point in their lives will never be able to repay it. I suggest that the IRS should track this over the life of every taxpayer with a SS #. People who have a positive healthcare balance should never receive a tax refund until their healthcare account goes down to zero.

A good analysis.Unfortunately, some Catholics in the pro life movement have so aligned themselves, in recent years, with the Republican agenda, they no longer see the distinction. This, sadly, includes a small minority of bishops.

Those in the Church who have health coverage can voice all sorts of concerns without worry, but who speaks for Catholics and other Americans who lack heath coverage or who lose health coverage because of the present economy. Catholics used to have an obligation to take carte of the sick. Has that changed? The religious right in the Catholic Church is tone-deaf to their needs.

By refusing to work with the democrats the Republicans are giving up ground that they could easily win especially when it comes to the abortion debate. IF they are not careful health care reform could end up making abortion much more available than it is now. What incentive do the democrats have to irritate their base if they cannot score some points with the opposition by crafting legislation with them. The Republicans had ample opportunity to tackle the health care issue and refused to take the political heat for it. All they could muster in eight years was a crazy scheme to cover medicine for the elderly.
Our bishops are also undermining their credibility between the loose cannons mentioned in this article that act like sheer leaders for the Republicans and the USCCB secretariat on prolife that seems to be working at odds with the bishop's pro-health care reform message along with the other prolife organizations mentioned in the article. I believe a huge mistake on behalf of all these groups is that they have so narrowly focused their attention on how to deal with abortion and so fully aligned themselves with the Republicans and conservatives in general. What about getting at the cause of abortion as the democrats have finally put into their platform? This is where we should have put our efforts to begin with.
Thank you Mr. Winters for putting together an excellent article.

A few reactions:

1) There is no such thing as pro-abortion. No one is in favor of abortion. People are in favor of various means of ending abortion. One side thinks it should be outlawed (pro-life). Another thinks we should implement policies reduce demand without making abortion illegal (pro-choice).

2) I am so pleased that someone is finally emphasizing that "pro-life" means more than just "anti-abortion." I loved the quote from Professor Stephen Schneck. I have trouble seeing how Catholics do not support health care reform and coverage for all people. Providing coverage for pregnant women can only help reduce the number of abortions because these women will not have to worry as much about the additional stress of medical costs related to having a child. Being pro-life (if you understand it in terms of the consistent life ethic) also means protecting those rights which enable people to enjoy a decent quality of life. If you have a right to life, then I think you you have the right to the health care that will enable to you live a decent life.

Overall, this article really pleases me. I hope it starts to open peoples' minds about what it really means to be pro-life and how health care reform factors into this identity. It is more than just being anti-abortion. Thank you.

"A rising tide," so the saying goes, "lifts all boats."

It is impossible to step into the flow of the health care reform stream, and then to insist that abortion and contraception, which reliously neutral government view as objective medical procedures, be exempted from improvements in availability of medical care.

Neither can one insist that the judgements surrounding the appropriateness of medical procedures be between a doctor and patient--- with minimal interference from government and insurers--- and then begin making a list of exceptions based upon religious doctrine.

If a procedure is legal, and accepted by the medical community as having legitimate medical antecedants, then medical insurance must cover it. If anti-abortion groups wish to attempt to make it illegal, then that is the route to take. Illegal procedures obviously would not be covered by insurance from any sector.

Failing that, then it is the role of anti-abortion groups to do their best to win the hearts and minds of patients and to persuade them to choose not to have the procedure.

Health care reform is too critical an issue for any group to attempt to gain a little ground on their pet cause. It is not about an increase or decrease in the availability of any single procedure. It is about widening OVERALL access to medical care, across the full spectrum of required and elective medical services.

Though one-issue anti-abortion types may not agree, not EVERYTHING is about abortion.

To be willing to derail health care availability for all Americans on this single issue is unconscionable.

Michael Sean Winters is right on the money in his analysis of the ultra-conservatives' counterproductive impact on influencing those who are shaping the heath-care reform bill. However, I don't think Mr. Winters has to worry. President Obama is a very intelligent, compassionate, moral and upstanding person with more good will in his little finger than in the total body mass combined of the opposing individuals cited in the article. Where are the side-lined bishops who should be bellowing their support for this truly gifted president, who, in his Wednesday evening speech, showed such great support for them? "Oh", I know, they have to be quiet, lest they disrespect their Republican base.
Pax,
Bill

Being anti-abortion does mean one is pro-life. A couple 55 years old are provided health insurance by their church employer. The cost is based on age and zipcode. Living in the city of Chicago, the church that eomloys these two pays $21,000 per year to insure them. This has resulted in no pay raises in ten years, no colas, and limiting other ministries just to be able to insure their pastor and hs wife.
A local business owner is paying over $5500/ month to provide health insurance for 12 employees, with a $5,000 deductible. It is draining this company of all financial resources and limits its future potential as a business, after 80+ years, because the owner feels a moral obligation to offer health insurance to her emplyees.
Let's hope that Congress, with a great health care plan that is fre to members, does the right thing for the average American!

At a time when the consistent position of the USCCB on health reform emerges as entirely in line with the goals of the President, what a colossal blunder for some of the hierarchy to confuse the faithful by their blind political obstinacy and denial of core positions on Catholic Social Justice on right of health care for the sick and dispossessed. Unfortunately the ill informed will mistake people like Deal Hudson and Raymond Arroya as legitimate interpreters of Church teaching. Fortunately, the rest of us can look to Benedict XVI and Caritas in Veritate. I pray daily for this president and his courage in the face of almost satanic opposition to leading this country back to it founding spirit of unity and compassion for the least among us.

Download his great article! Thanks, Mr. Winters.

In the past two years I have seen the word "socialism" (and variations such as "socialized medicine") frequently misused, especially by some Republicans and by some pro-lifers.

There should be an article on the original 19th-century use of the word "socialism" and its evolution to whatever it might mean in contemporary debates and campaigns. In many states here, after the War of 1812, and in many European states after 1815 and the fall of Napoleon, it was considered quite revolutionary or "socialist" to advocate in most places for the right of labor to organize, the right of unpropertied working men [yes, males] to vote, or the right of the poor to move into urban areas. But many once-socialist ideas have become ingredients of our modern apple pies. Yet the word "socialism" has gained new life as a failsafe slander, akin to words such as "unsafe", "terrorist" and "un-American" in our contemporary debates and campaigns. It has lost its old meanings, and now often serves simply as another shoe to be thrown, or a nasty word shouted, and to be avoided by ducking [scene: President Bush ducking an Iraqi reporter's shoes] or ignoring [scene: President Obama ignoring a loutish Congressman's expletive]. The debate must continue, hopefully without such language.

And there is the troubling and almost dangerous use of the word "right" in the health care debate. I do advocate health care at reasonable cost to all American citizens (perhaps with caps and on a sliding [downward] scale), free for American citizens who are poor. But I am reluctant to say that this is a "right", without a fuller review of what our rights are, and (if possible) a consensus on what the source(s) of such rights might be. The word "right" seems to be used as a type of flag to be waved. Why not just wave the flag, and leave this word aside.

Let me be a little particular. If the word "right" appears in the legislation or in its formal (prefatory) findings, then it should be defined in the legislation. If it is defined as a civil right, a whole host of already-developed legal consequences then will apply in the inevitable litigation of cases brought under the new legislation, resulting in, among other things, restrictions stated in the legislation being stricken by the courts as inconsistent with the rights conferred or affirmed in the (same) legislation. Refer to the concern in Mr. Winters' article about the desired legislation's expressed exclusion of abortion procedures and funding therefor, being argued (in future litigation)as inconsistent with the "right" the legislation might express to health care coverage. Again, if the word "right" does appear in the legislation, but without definition, the courts might supply a definition, and define it as a civil right. Bottom line: avoid the word altogether.

This somehow reminds me of President Lincoln's concern that an anti-slavery constitutional amendment would be the only and surest way to finally end slavery, because his own Emancipation Proclamation was based (only) on his commander-in-chief powers (during a wartime), and because the other course, enacting a statute, might be later be repealed, or overturned by the courts. And so as the political leader of the anti-slavery movement, and wanting the effect of his Proclamation to be extended and made as permanent as possible (and as the Proclamation said it would be), Lincoln pushed in his campaign for reelection in 1864, and afterwards in early 1865, for the Thirteenth Amendment. It was approved by Congress on January 31, 1865 and was in the process of being ratified by two-thirds of the states when he was assassinated -- its ratification being completed by the 27th state on December 6, 1865. It was a colossal and biblically complex effort, marked out by the loss and diminution of so many lives in slavery over 250 years, by the deaths and wounding of countless Americans over 4 years of civil war, and by tons of pages of writings of all kinds.

The health care debate today is in its own way another monumental moral, economic, financial, political and social struggle, with millions of lives at stake, and the resolution of its issue(s) likely to be as daunting as all that Americans faced in the Civil War and suffered in the racial divide that has culminated in the still-continuing civil rights movement.

To sum up: the use of the words "socialism" and "socialized medicine" should be dropped in our debates over health care reform. The word "right" should appear nowhere, anywhere, in the enacted legislation or in any Congressional findings prefacing the legislation. The legislation can pass and go into effect without the word "right". To be quite frank, whatever we come up with will in all probability require some amending within four or five years of operation (not counting immediate amendments, when bungled drafting is revealed as is so often the case with legislation in new areas). I have never seen the word "right" deleted from enacted legislation by way of later amendment. That would be bad politics. So don't put it in, in the first place.

As Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural, "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so must we think anew and act anew. We must disenthral ourselves, and then we shall save our country." I say this whole debate needs more of the clear and detailed writings of the type that Mr. Winters presents.

Vincent

I am living in Europe, in Poland. When i read about health care reform proposals and your discusion i can only bitter smile. In Poland all people who work, who dont have work, who are reatired have health insurence, covered by state. And it looks so, when you want to go to specialists, you have to wait for months. Therefore all pay for privet doctors. In shortly, when you have money, you have a change to come back to health, if you are poor , you can die waiting months for surgery with your insurance in the pocket. Dont forget that when you are already in hospital - you have to pay , mostly unoficially for many services. If you belive that state is able to provide good health service and that insurance for all will solve all problems you will be shortly disappointed. I think that it is right that all people should have access to health care system but there is need a great wisdom how to arrange it.

The United States is not Poland.
Our government sponsored health care systems, such as Medicare and the VA system, do NOT resemble the Polish system as described by the unverified "Polish citizen" in any way, shape or form.

Thank you for the wonderful analysis. I am so pleased, Michael,, that you have had the courage to call out these conservative and partisan Republican bishops and others who, in my humble opinion, are not really pro life at all. They are antiabortion only but fail to follow the social teaching of the Catholic Church.

To boil this down to its simplest terms, these people (Hudson, Arroyo et al) are about opposing Obama on anything and everything. They are as firmly wedded to the Republican Party as Mitch McConnell or John Boehner. Their "on air" time is spent thrashing about for ways to bend Catholic teaching into line with their rightwing ideology. Priests and bishops like Sirico and Nickless are happy to "legitimize" them for a chance to preen in the limelight themselves. It's a disgrace that the majority of bishops sat back for years letting these people and their wealthy backers become the voice of American Catholicism.

Why does Deal Hudson have a shred of credibility to comment on anything?

See http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004c/082704/082704i.php for the “real deal” on his background, including sexual misconduct in 1994 that ended in his removal from Fordham’s faculty. The details speak for themselves.

In my view, what Hudson did amounted to rape, taking advantage of a drunken, troubled student, when the power differential was obvious: a 44-year-old faculty leader with a vulnerable 18-year-old. He adopted the benign public relations language of bishops about “mistakes,” “grievous sin” or “embarrassing event” when I believe “crime” is the more appropriate term. And shall we parse the definition of rape to exclude Hudson’s action? His version of consent must be breathtaking.

The Washington Times reported in 2004 on additional accusations of sexual misconduct, when his resignation as editor of Crisis Magazine was sought after the NCR coverage broke. “This was not about one incident 10 years ago” WT quoted a Catholic scholar as major columnists and public figures pressured for Hudson’s removal. A $30,000 settlement had been paid in the Fordham case, WT reported.

See http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040921-114801-5122r.htm

It is past time to ignore Hudson.

Prolife means to be pro all life. I have never known anyone or had conversation with anyone who is in favor of killing babies. Prolife means to do everything we possibly can to see that a person can pursue life and some semblance of happiness. Any measure of happiness must include food, housing and basic health care. This is my hope for all humanity, wherever they were born, wherever they live, presently. Prolife means Pro all life; it does not stop with the birth of a baby; that is when the REAL WORK begins; to then see that this new life will enjoy the comforts he/she is entitled to. Most of the prolifers only speak of abortion and not what follows the prevention of abortion. Many, who profess to be prolife, also do not believe in any form of contraception, even to prevent a pardner from contracting AIDS. This definitely is not PROLIFE. The Republican Bishops certainly do seem to be avoiding Catholic social teachings.

As many have said--for the radical right abortion is only a smokescreen for another agenda--the wild free market where even your neighbor comes under suspicion. The only rights recognized are gun rights, market rights, property rights the Ron Paul rights. And Catholic bishops happily do their bidding. Taxes are a taking. Human rights are market rights. Nietzsche lurks behind all of this.

What a bunch of blather. Catholic Teaching calls work a fundamental right...does this mean Government should provide the jobs? (Cheat sheet answer: um, no.)

This is the small-minded sheep mentality of a great many responing to this article. I kept waitng for the gist of Mr. Winters' arhgument...I think I found it.

"The administration and the leaders in Congress have no reason to listen to pro-life advocates on abortion if they are going to be opposed to the final bill on other grounds anyway."

This supposses a "final bill" will even become reality.

Just for the record, I spent a great amount of time with Mr. Hudson recently and those who say he is not in favor of reform are simply...let me say this charitably...mistaken. One must only Google or look at insidecatholic.com to see Dr. Hudson's (and other) alternatives to the curent Universal health care approach.

But that might require thinking...

Niether is taking the life of an innocent baby a constitutional right.
However the Rite to Life for all Americans definitely is.
And for anyone who is sincere enough to be honest let alone
Human and Godly in not allowing anyone of us most espeshially
our most vulnurable and legislatively silenced pre born brothers and sisters
[exactly as were all our equal Living Human African American brothers and sisters when America so wrongly Legalized slavery]]
anyone can verify exactly when life begins which of course is when God created every one of us:at the miraculous moment of conception!-PERIOD!
And just as Legalizing Slavery had nothing to with States Rights-Constitutional Rights a Man's Rite A Woman's Rite or any other ridiculous farce of any sort of any Rites that would scheme to allow any Human{{yes i said Human,Living-despite any legislative scheme to pretend such facts are merely pretend...}}
being to be slaughtered-used-abused-'sold for parts.slavery.or any other unconcionable unjust scheme}}
being to be denied "HIS" or "HER" Rite to Life
This is not just my {mere} opinion/obligation as a genuine Catholic-
But a Human Fact & an American and God given Rite.

...TRUe
However More True and More significant and
important for the fulfillment of Our Lords
Will and the Message and Leadership of All our
Honorable and fervent Bishops representing Him and His/our
Church-
Any Genuine Catholic--who is automatically obligated
and would not be a bonna fied Catholic to promote
anti-Life or unjustly killing of any of Our Lord's creations
which of course continued legalized Abortion/Murder absolutely does despite the manner or scheme or scam of any polititian.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

First and foremost+
In trying to offer even a minute offer of support
for this 'Catholic' writer's contention on this issue-
i simply cannot.
**when i refer to "OUR" or "Catholic" herein,
i intentionally and sincerely contend that
such individuals/Faith is therefore an acceptance,
a Belief,an Obligation and a "iving as"unconditional pro-life**
Period.
Otherwise,Jesus's specifically warning us that
"You are either with me or against me" and
"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers,
that you do unto me..."
Like it or not You are putting your own [selfish and/or
self seeking ] preferences & mandates above
those of Our Creators let alone in this case decency
and [our] very humanity.
Get used to my accurate comparisons of America's
two probably most injust and abominable Faults in our
short history.
{{to be kind in saying}}}
a) Legalized Slavery against an innocent vulnerable group of our
Equal Human Living African American Brothers and sisters;
b) Legalized Abortion against on [even more] innocent vulnerable
group of our Equal Human Living brothers and sisters Living in the womb.

This writers contentions
are
quite immature,shallow,irresponsible and
quite frankly devious.
And i will give you merely a few of the grounds that such is true.
1) our esteemed and self seeking profiteering politicians who
de-humanized-de-franchized-and de Americanized a particular group of our innocent brothers and sisters-all our African American brothers and sisters by attempting to "brand into our beings"the acceptance and 'business' of Legalized Slavery;
Once again in an almost instant replay of [Legislative & manipulative]
scheming;
are applying the same devious inhumane and unjust schemes against
another group of our innocent brothers and sisters--
all our brothers and sisters who are babies in the womb.
Because of "SpaceAllowed" herein-
it isnt necessary to add the facts and
circumstances of our regretable history to substantiate such horrible realities.
However aside from many many "Radical or Republican" Catholics/prolifers
as this writer seems to falsly label us as;
i am sure that many many Anti Lifers-pretend Catholics-Luke warm Catholics
and others unconcerned with anyone else's unjustice-denial of a basic Right
such as the babies Rite To continue Living,,,such as those African Americans Rite to continue Living...
and such as both of the above groups of Living,Human,American,Equally Entitled individuals,are exactly and no less just that--
than you or I but just that
indeed-Human,Living,Equal beings.
and both groups of indivuals remain just that DESPITE and INSPITE OF
our esteemed profiteering self seeking polititians who did,have,and continue
to attemp to slaughter abuse and profit from the above specific
groups of "people"-
by
their/our
identical disgusting legislative schemes that were infact Legislated against each group
by
sham against our African American brothers and sisters
then again and even more abominable and using their
same "MO" [in order]
to continue America's current Hollocast
against our brothers and sisters in the womb.
..
To conclude although definitely not to be as elaborate as
all the disgusting facts
and
factions
which are in place
in order to {{temporarily as was the case again
earlier in our regretable history}}
allow such a Hollocast as Legalized Abortion infact is;
"WE" have not and do not choose to partake in an
"isolated" or "Non Godly or "Un Catholic or w/e other
absolutely false Label that this writer chooses to apply
to "Our" Obligation,"Our" Catholic Creed "Our realization and
Loyal fullfillment of Our Lord's Mandates and Will
and
[which specifically is]
"ALL OUR"
Obligation to "ALL" of our Human brother's and sisters infact
is===
on the contrary-
the extreem injustice of-
and the circumstance of the Hallocast being against
the most vulnerable,helpless,'silenced',Loving,and
most deserving of all our Brothers and Sisters
[in the womb-God forgive America]
such is the causation,the requirement,and the specification
that "WE" not be sinical,or side with any anti-life organization
etc.
but in fact that "WE" "Genuine Catholics" True Pro Lifers etc.
realize,accept,practice, and abide by Our Lords Will,the equal respect

of all our brothers and sisters/His creations and thus
will not accept any injustice against any of us
and cannot nor will not rest or stop
untill Legal Murder in America is once again
returned to its ritefull place of being illegal
to stay.

This writers contentions
are
quite immature,shallow,irresponsible and
quite frankly devious.
And i will give you merely a few of the grounds that such is true.
1) our esteemed and self seeking profiteering politicians who
de-humanized-de-franchized-and de Americanized a particular group of our innocent brothers and sisters-all our African American brothers and sisters by attempting to "brand into our beings"the acceptance and 'business' of Legalized Slavery;
Once again in an almost instant replay of [Legislative & manipulative]
scheming;
are applying the same devious inhumane and unjust schemes against
another group of our innocent brothers and sisters--
all our brothers and sisters who are babies in the womb.
Because of "SpaceAllowed" herein-
it isnt necessary to add the facts and
circumstances of our regretable history to substantiate such horrible realities.
However aside from many many "Radical or Republican" Catholics/prolifers
as this writer seems to falsly label us as;
i am sure that many many Anti Lifers-pretend Catholics-Luke warm Catholics
and others unconcerned with anyone else's unjustice-denial of a basic Right
such as the babies Rite To continue Living,,,such as those African Americans Rite to continue Living...
and such as both of the above groups of Living,Human,American,Equally Entitled individuals,are exactly and no less just that--
than you or I but just that
indeed-Human,Living,Equal beings.
and both groups of indivuals remain just that DESPITE and INSPITE OF
our esteemed profiteering self seeking polititians who did,have,and continue
to attemp to slaughter abuse and profit from the above specific
groups of "people"-
by
their/our
identical disgusting legislative schemes that were infact Legislated against each group
by
sham against our African American brothers and sisters
then again and even more abominable and using their
same "MO" [in order]
to continue America's current Hollocast
against our brothers and sisters in the womb.
..
To conclude although definitely not to be as elaborate as
all the disgusting facts
and
factions
which are in place
in order to {{temporarily as was the case again
earlier in our regretable history}}
allow such a Hollocast as Legalized Abortion infact is;
"WE" have not and do not choose to partake in an
"isolated" or "Non Godly or "Un Catholic or w/e other
absolutely false Label that this writer chooses to apply
to "Our" Obligation,"Our" Catholic Creed "Our realization and
Loyal fullfillment of Our Lord's Mandates and Will
and
[which specifically is]
"ALL OUR"
Obligation to "ALL" of our Human brother's and sisters infact
is===
on the contrary-
the extreem injustice of-
and the circumstance of the Hallocast being against
the most vulnerable,helpless,'silenced',Loving,and
most deserving of all our Brothers and Sisters
[in the womb-God forgive America]
such is the causation,the requirement,and the specification
that "WE" not be sinical,or side with any anti-life organization
etc.
but in fact that "WE" "Genuine Catholics" True Pro Lifers etc.
realize,accept,practice, and abide by Our Lords Will,the equal respect

of all our brothers and sisters/His creations and thus
will not accept any injustice against any of us
and cannot nor will not rest or stop
untill Legal Murder in America is once again
returned to its ritefull place of being illegal
to stay.

After the 9/11 attacks President Bush had a majority in congress, a friendly supreme court, and enough approval rating to have stood up and overturned Roe - or passed a constitutional amendment if necessary. He really could have accomplished anything.

After the 2004 elections President Bush used the political capital from that victory not to end legalized abortion in America, but to try to dismantle Social Security.

In fact, in two terms President Bush only fought for changes in funding for abortion, but not a change in its legal status. Poor-people abortions wouldn't (theoretically) happen, but rich-people abortions still would. I guess the fact that no money would be "stolen" to pay these government subsidized abortions made it less of a tragedy.

This tells us that President Bush did not feel that abortion was his number one priority. Nor, was it the number priority of any pro-life politician or group around at the time because not one group spoke out against him. They spouted vitriol against those Godless Democrats and heathen liberals, but did not take their chosen leader to task for his complete failure to do anything substantive for the pro-life cause.

The pro-life movement in America is a dismal failure with almost no credibility beyond its own choir due largely to its slavish attachment to Republican demagogues who routinely use them to tip close elections and then completely sell them out for the entire election cycle. They have become useful idiots and vicious attack dogs that seem to expect nothing more than a pat on the head for their efforts before being led back to the kennel until needed again.

One last thought: Imagine if Bush had been successful in dismantling social security and pushing every senior into the stock market. Given its performance this last year would anyone have anything right now? Cries against "socialism" are very fashionable right now, but when it comes time to put food on the table we all like our medicare and social security, don't we?

(...and roads, and fire departments, and the department of defense, and the air traffic control system, and the centers for disease control,...)

EWTN, Deal Hudson and the rest are not really Roman Catholics they are Reactionaries who dress up as Catholics. EWTN has chosen to ignore those who were abused by priests trying to blame Homosexuals for what the Bishops allowed. Hudson is a rapist who was used by Karl Rove.

The fact is however that the Catholic Left does a lousy job of expressing Catholic social thought. If you put Rerum Novarum, Pacem in Terris or Dorothy Day's work in front of today's Catholics no one would know what they are but plenty know about Joel Osteen.... maybe we need to be in the Truth business and the Church needs to teach our tradition more??? Instead of letting EWTN define what is TRUTH

Ah yes, the great divide. "liberals" will claim to be open minded, non-judgmental...until confronted with "conservatives" - in which case, suddenly they know the conservative's inner motives, and can judge their faith, their morals, and their intelligence!

I approach things a bit differently. I believe in private property, and that human rights don't come from the state, the party, our fellow citizens or the UN...but from God. And as such, responsibility to respect the rights of others, ultimately is an individual mandate out of love - not something we ought to seek to coerce via the force of some police-state regime.

Liberals' goals are laudable: to care for all fellow citizen's needs: housing, education, food, clothing, jobs, healthcare..... but what are their means? State control. Massive taxation. Huge bureaucracies (run by them, of course) with intrusive mandates to 'make sure no one cheats', etc.

OK, well, has this sort of thing ever worked and if so, where and how?

If American liberals really do have brilliant ideas, and they really are intellectually and morally superior to American conservatives....then show me one city, one county, or one state that they've had a chance to run for several decades (to give them enough time and money to implement their 'superior' ideas) that is thriving.

Just one.

CA is bankrupt. NJ is full of corruption. MA is approaching insolvency. MI is faced with massive lay offs across local, county, city and state lines due to cratering tax bases....

Major cities entirely run by Democrats are floundering in corruption, failing schools, crumbling infrastructure, high crime, and ethnic self-segregation if not race wars fought among gangs.

But they're morally and intellectually superior to American Conservatives. Because they say so. Because the Peace and Justice Catholics say so. Because the Media don't report the political affiliation of corrupt politicians except when it's a Republican. Go google any report from Detroit and you have to dig to find out Kwame Kilpatrick was a lifelong Democrat. Gee, I wonder why?

Now they want to control health care. Which will expand coverage for abortion. And we conservative Catholics aren't supposed to be concerned? We're not allowed to oppose them? We're supposed to look at failing public schools - entirely run by liberals....failing major cities - entirely run by liberals and failing states - entirely run by liberals....and conclude that the same folks who can't handle responsibility and government power in localities and states ought to be trusted with national power?

Your goals may be wonderful, but if your means consistently fail to produce them....maybe you ought to start doubting the wisdom or moral integrity of the folk you put in charge of the 'means' to achieve these nobel goals!

The dogma of the Catholic Church does not condemn socialism (of which there are many forms) and capitalism (of which there are many different forms). Communism is condemned because it is godless and materialistic. Most forms of socialism are no where near communism. Our federal highways, post office and water systems are examples of socialism that we accept.

As far as a federal medical system, we have the law so let's try it. As far as the horror stories about waiting in a socialized system, I can tell there are delays in the system we have now. Worse yet, one might never get treatment.

As I understand it, if one has medical insurance, one will keep it. If one does not, one will be able to obtain coverage. The law standardizes the basic program. So Christian Scientist employers cannot limit the treatment to Christian Science healers, Jehovah Witness employers will have to cover blood transfusions, Catholic employers will will cover contraception and so on. That is more than we have now. Let see if it works. The law was passed. So how about showing ways to make it work instead of focusing on the negative which might not happen.