Stupak is not Hyde

From CMR:

In response to Matthew’s post “Did U.S. Bishops Caveat an Eternal Truth?” which asks how the Bishops could endorse health care when it will pay for some abortions (rape and incest), we received comments, emails, and tweets that take issue with this point of view. The response suggests that this instance is no different than the Hyde amendment, which also contains exceptions for rape and incest. The issues here could not be more different.

The Hyde Amendment’s express purpose was to limit the funding of abortion. The best that could be politically achieved were the prohibitions on federal funding of abortion with exceptions for rape and incest. In no way did the Hyde amendment propose to actually pay for those exceptions.

Today, the situation is different. The Stupak amendment is an amendment to an overall bill that would have paid for all abortions. The amendment limited the types of abortions that would be paid for by the Health Care bill, but in the end the bill would still pay for some abortions. This makes it radically different from the Hyde amendment.

What the Bishop’s did is indicate that with he inclusion of the Stupak amendment, they could support the Health Care bill, a bill which will pay for some abortions. The net effect is that the number of abortions will increase due to the funding. No pro-life politician, no Catholic, and certainly no Bishop should in any way support a bill that will lead to additional abortions through federal funding.

While it is true that without the Stupak amendment, the health care bill would have been much worse and led to many more abortions, no Bishop of the Catholic Church and no one who calls themselves pro-life should support a bill that will lead to more abortions. Period.

For the Bishops to indicate support for a bill that will fund some abortions is unacceptable. Would the Bishops support a stand-alone bill that would pay for abortions in the cases of rape or incest? I think not. For the same reason , they cannot not support the health care bill either. No amount of universal health care make this permissible.

As stated, without the Stupak amendment the health care bill would have been worse, but there is no compromise on the funding of killing. By supporting the Health Care bill, even with Stupak, this is exactly what the Bishops are doing.

The Hyde amendment never funded a single abortion, but sought to limit what it could. The same cannot be said of the the Health Care bill, Stupak or no Stupak. 


2 Responses to Stupak is not Hyde

  1. Mauricio says:

    This is a letter to the Editor of the Palo Alto Daily News.

    There is no compromise on human life

    Dear Editor: Last Saturday, the House passed the health care reform bill. This is considered a historic, pro-life victory for Catholic bishops and many Christians because it supposedly excludes abortion.

    The reason it passed was because of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which will ban the use of federal subsidies to purchase abortion coverage in policies sold by private insurers, except in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger.

    Now, how could they say it excludes abortion when the Stupak-Pitts amendment includes the exceptions of incest, rape or when the mother’s life is in danger?

    Remember, the Hyde amendment had no exception.

    Well, my understanding has always been and still remains that a baby conceived by incest or rape is a unique living human being when conceived. The baby has 46 chromosomes, his or her own complete identity, and he or she is endowed with the likeness and image of God.

    Could anyone tell me the difference of humanity between a baby conceived by incest or rape, and a baby conceived by a married couple, hopefully, or a non-married couple? You cannot because there is not a bit of difference.

    How dare anyone who calls himself or herself a true Christian or non-Christian says that they are pro-life when they accept the Stupak-Pitts amendment with its intolerable exceptions? These people are living in a state of total darkness and confusion, and are being misled and deceived.

    This is an act of selective murder of innocent babies conceived by incest or rape. These babies, who are completely innocent, are being sentenced to death by a permissive society that is based on secular humanism, no absolutes and a notion that anything goes.

    Also, a mother’s life is only in danger when the embryo is attached to the fallopian tubes, which is a bad pregnancy. The embryo has no chance to be saved, so the embryo must be removed or the mother will die. This procedure is not considered an abortion.

    There must never be a compromise on human life, which the Stupak-Pitts amendment is based on.

    Ross Foti, Belmont

  2. Jeanne M. Breunig says:

    Thank you for clarifying the problem with Stupak. I didn’t know until reading this. Thank you so much. God bless you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: