The most disturbing element of the Stupak amendment fight is the outsized influence of the Catholic Church, particularly the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, who insistently lobbied on the health care bill as it wrapped up in the House.
The call came in from Rome, just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants were scrambling to round up scarce votes to pass their sweeping health overhaul.
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, was on the line for Pelosi, calling to discuss adding strict abortion restrictions to the House bill.
It was just one element of an intensive lobbying effort orchestrated by the nation’s Catholic bishops, who have emerged as a formidable force in the health care negotiations. They used their clout with millions of Catholics and worked behind the scenes in Congress to make sure the abortion curbs were included in the legislation — and are now pressing to keep them there.
The church has no official lobbyists and spends no money on political actions, at least according to their accountants. But clearly they have wielded a tremendous amount of power and practically seized a veto power over the final bill.
This could be why Rep. Stupak is almost arrogant in his pronouncements since the vote, saying confidently that there will be “hell to pay” if his language restricting reproductive choice is stripped from the bill. He has the power of the Church behind him, so the “hell” imagery is appropriate. He’s comfortable saying that any language looser than his would “legitimize abortion as a federal policy” even though it’s already a legitimate and legal procedure. He’s dismissive of the massive class divide that his language would cause – and the Hyde Amendment has already caused – preferring to babble the “current law” talking point six times in a single paragraph, secure in the knowledge that he has the Church to back him up:
No, we’re going with current law. If current law is a class divide, then they must conclude that current law is too. No, all I’m doing is keeping current law–I’m not trying to divide classes or anything like that. All I’m doing is keeping current law that’s been current law since 1976.
Jeff Sharlet has an incredible piece about Stupak and his partner on the amendment, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), and their relationship to the shadowy Christian organization The Family, dissenting a bit that this is the province of the Catholic church:
Much is being made in the media about the role played by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, which lobbied hard for the amendment. “We just have to accept this as a Catholic thing,” goes the new conventional wisdom. Leaving aside the fact that a strong majority of American Catholics are pro-choice, that story line obscures the increasingly significant role played by evangelical conservatives within the Democratic Party.
Start with Stupak and Pitts themselves. Although Stupak is a Catholic, he’s lived since at least 2002 in the C Street house run by the Family, which cultivates political leaders on behalf of a long-term vision of what Joe Pitts, speaking at last year’s National Prayer Breakfast (the group’s only public event), called “God-led government.” After the summer sex scandals of Sen. John Ensign, Gov. Mark Sanford and former Rep. Chip Pickering, C Streeters all, made the Capitol Hill address infamous, Stupak denied any knowledge about the house he lives in. “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” Stupak told Michigan reporters when asked about his residence in the house, where he’s been enjoying below-market rent for the last seven years, courtesy of C Street’s tax-exempt status as a church. But when the Los Angeles Times asked Stupak about his role there in 2002, he pleaded secrecy instead of ignorance: “We sort of don’t talk to the press about the house.”
However, at a minimum, the Church has become emboldened by their recent victory, enough to make threats to the DC City Council that they would abandon the social services they provide in the city if it passes a law allowing gay marriage:
Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.
“If the city requires this, we can’t do it,” Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. “The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that’s really a problem.”
Evan McMorris-Santoro has more.
I mean, this is a form of blackmail. And it’s coming from an organization that pays no federal taxes and is supposed to engage in no political activities.



10 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I quit going to my local Catholic church because it seemed more and more like a Billy Graham Revival. I guess it is making the turn completely by cooptating the hard ass stance of evangelical christians. The church has no business in trying to effect the results of elections. It needs to work harder on saving the souls of the hard right conservatives who seem to think it is alright to screw the American economy and people so a select few can enrich themselves. Sounds a little calvinistic doesn’t it.
What happened to all the child abuse and cover-up? How did they bounce back from that trouncing?
What happened to separation of church and state? Where are the tax bills for all the politically active religious groups? I’m not a legal expert, what am I missing here?
The DC news is very troubling.
If they want to get so involved in politics, when there is suppose to be a separation of “Church and State”, I recommend an Immediate Stop to their Tax Exempt Status.
If they think they are having money collection problems now, wait until they have to pay big taxes for their buildings, those gold chalices, etc!!
Rachel busted them quite well this evening. Stupak and his supporters argue that, because of the fungibility of money even the tax breaks that the Government gives businesses for their contribution to employees’ health insurance, which in some cases cover abortions, the government is therefore supporting abortions.
Rachel’s reply is that, by the same token, all of the government’s grants to and contracts with Catholic charities constitute government contributions to the Catholic Church, which violates the constitutional separation of church and state. (She might have added research grants and contracts to Catholic universities.)
If the church is donating the time of the bishops to lobby their political position, that donation represents a considerable expense IMO and must be declared. From the IRS,
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4221pc.pdf
Did the bishops register as lobbyists? They were supposed to if they are going to lobby, otherwise they were breaking the law.
http://www.npgoodpractice.org/Resource/ResourceFile.aspx?resourceid=5448
I’d like to point out that we have no idea what 5% of the Catholic Church’s budget is because they don’t declare income or expenses, but that whatever it is, it would be considerable. I think the word “substantial” should instead refer to the political impact, which in this case as in the recent prop 8 issue with the Mormons, is substantial.
To allow these rich churches to use the power of their purse to discriminate against the rest of us, especially against us poor women, is unconscionable. It clearly violates the idea of separation between church and state when a few big churches dominate our state functions.
We are NOT a theocracy!
Methinks the IRS needs to power their way into the Catholic Church, and any church that wants to play a direct role in our politics.
Not yet, but it’s coming, step by step. The United States of Christianistas. Part of the problem is the purposeful dumbing down of America. People really do not understand history, the troubles our parent country, England has gone through with religion, even current times with the IRA. They have no clue of what our country was founded on, and why religion was so purposefully left out of any state proscribed doctrine. Those who don’t understand history are doomed to relive it.