Is The USCCB Responsible for ObamaCare?
The American Life League (ALL) is making a strong case of placing most of the blame for passage of ObamaCare squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
What the ALL is alleging is that the USCCB was very desperate to push for universal health coverage that they compromised on some key principles. One of which was that of abortion where instead of fighting against abortion they decided to stick their heads in the ground and use “abortion neutral” language.
They did this by releasing a document called Making Health Care Reform “Abortion Neutral”: What is the Legal Status Quo on Abortion?. This allowed them, in their own mythical liberal world, to support “abortion neutral” language in ObamaCare that included massive expansion of federally funded birth control, sex education, and the redefining of euthanasia.
If what the ALL is saying is true, that the USCCB compromised basic tenets of the faith regarding birth control, sex education, and euthanasia in order to push for “abortion neutral” health care legislation, then I for one have lost more respect for the USCCB.
As the ALL spokesman Michael Hitchborn said:
Dead bodies float downstream, it takes a living body to go against the currents.
–Archbishop Fulton Sheen
The USCCB closely resembles a corpse. Which is quite appropriate since they continue to engage the culture of death in order to push their liberal agendas.
10 Responses to Is The USCCB Responsible for ObamaCare?
![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YqM_zH1K7Uw/TOK1hLlt3BI/AAAAAAAAA1o/HCzoksN1-ME/s1600/email+icon+32x32.png")
- Dale Price commented on America Meets Dale
(6 minutes ago) - William P. Walsh commented on America Hates the Second Amendment
(1 hours ago) - Pinky commented on Cutting the Papa-Bull
(1 hours ago) - Mike Petrik commented on Better to be Raped Than to be Armed
(1 hours ago) - James commented on Rape and Kung Fu
(2 hours ago) - G-Veg commented on America Meets Dale
(3 hours ago) - John Nolan commented on Klavan on Pope Benedict
(3 hours ago) - Dave W commented on America Hates the Second Amendment
(3 hours ago) - Jonathan commented on Blackbeard
(4 hours ago) - John Nolan commented on Rape and Kung Fu
(4 hours ago) - Michael Paterson-Seymour commented on Dorothy Day: Anarcho-Capitalist, Perhaps
(4 hours ago) - Dr Carol Byrne commented on Dorothy Day: Anarcho-Capitalist, Perhaps
(5 hours ago) - Michael PS commented on Cutting the Papa-Bull
(6 hours ago)
It was imprudent for the USCCB to advocate for universal health care. While it is important and appropriate for the USCCB to explain the moral rules of engagement regarding access to health care, how a society can best satisfy those moral imperatives is outside its competency. Its opinions are no more or less instructive or insightful than mine, yours, etc. One of the most important moral rules of engagement regarding health care is that abortion is unacceptable.
I agree with Mike, but this is BS. The bishops (who certainly favor HC reform of some sort and in many or most cases prefer a government based system) were one of the loudest and most influential voices against abortion and the lack of conscience provisions. If it weren’t for them and other pro-life orgs like NRTL Obamacare would have steamrolled through with generous abortion provisions. In large part it was their influence with “pro-life” Dems that resulted in making the matter an obstacle to be overcome by Dem leadership and gaining what little protections there are.
There = their. Illiterate or something.
RL,
Got it fixed for you buddy.
Cardinal George personally telephoned pro-life GOPers to push for the pro-life amendment when it was in the House.
He didn’t do any such thing when Bart Stupak and his Benedict Arnold’s reversed course and put the death sentence on innocent unborn children.
I’m with RL. The USCCB was one of the loudest opponents of ObamaCare. To say that they are somehow responsible for it passing is bizarre.
Thanks Tito.
The bishops spoke to anyone and everyone who would listen. They made it clear to Stupak too. The bishops were rightfully disappointed in the “pro-life” Dems that changed their vote, and outraged at the shenanigans and betrayal of the CHA. I use the owrd outraged because that is pretty much what it would take for them to speak so disapprovingly publicly.
Why is it that anyone continues to think that our bishops are men of honor? Which of them would accept martyrdom in support of Church? Why was it necessary for the Vatican to issue rules about the protection of children?
Blind mouths, as Milton called them.
Blind mouths! that scarce themselves know how to hold
A sheep-hook, or have learn’d aught else the least That to the faithful herdman’s art belongs!
What recks it them? What need they? They are sped;
And when they list, their lean and flashy songs
Grate on their scrannel pipes of wretched straw:
The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed,
But swoln with wind and the rank mist they draw
Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread:
Besides what the grim wolf with privy paw
Daily devours apace, and nothing said:
Gabriel,
I think you paint with an exceedingly broad and uncharitable brush. And to answer your insulting rhetorical question, I bet quite a few would accept martyrdom if it came to that — but like STM have no interest in initiating or accelerating the process.
Politics are a problem for the USCCB. There are many so called “Catholics” who continue their support of todays culture and relativisms in Congress. The only fault of these Bishops , for most of them , is their inability in their teaching of the Church’s tenets to really enforced these teachings on those politicians after meetings and consultations with these so called “catholics” who continue to support the culture of death. A good example is the record of Nancy Pelosi and yet the extreme measure of excomunication is not used. These leaves many of the laity to wonder why they also can not pick and choose what tenets they may or may not follow, or disagree with, or why if these politicians are are able to cotinue their ” standing ” in the Church why then can’t they.
Mike Petrik said Friday, July 16, 2010 A.D.
“Gabriel,
I think you paint with an exceedingly broad and uncharitable brush. And to answer your insulting rhetorical question, I bet quite a few would accept martyrdom if it came to that — but like STM have no interest in initiating or accelerating the process”.
My point is quite simple: our bishops are failing in their duty. Compare ours with the bishops in China, Vietnam, Africa.
A.N.Whitehead described religion in our time as “decoration for comfortable lives”. Our bishops are afraid; they congregate behind the chancery walls and the bureaucratic pomposities of the USCCB.
Consider but the inanities of Fr. McBrien, published in so many diocesan papers. Uncharitable is permitting his misleading notions to be published under episcopal authority. {One among many examples: Fr. McBrien believes that ensoulment of the fetus happens three months after conception – which is to say that an abortion before the 3rd month is not murder].
Bishops like hanging around politicians. They are not unlike the Arian bishops who delighted in being received at the court in Constantinople. Plus ca change…