A false choice in health care battle
Source: The Boston Globe By ELLEN GOODMAN IT WAS one of those small shocks that come unexpectedly following a death. Just days after the country had buried Ted Kennedy, Cardinal Sean O'Malley took to his blog to defend himself from critics attacking him for presiding over the funeral of a prochoice senator. The cardinal explained how he had used the occasion to lobby one of the mourners: the president of the United States. He told Barack Obama that, yes, the Catholic bishops wanted universal health care but "we will not support a plan that will include a provision for abortion or could open the way to abortions in the future." Is there an etiquette for lobbying at a funeral? Unseemly is too mild a word. This politicking during a national outpouring of loss for the last of the Kennedy brothers, a time when tens of thousands of Americans of every religion lined up to say their farewells, was a warning sign. The Conference of Catholic Bishops was willing to scuttle their longtime support for universal health care in order to roll back women's access to abortion. They were prepared to make common cause with Republicans whose only interest was to defeat Obama. Out went the careful construction of a congressional bill that was written to be "abortion-neutral." Under intense pressure led by the bishops, a last-minute maneuver forced many in the House of Representatives to choose between a bill that left reproductive health on the cutting room floor or no bill at all. So, with the Stupak-Pitts amendment hanging from it like an albatross, a bill was passed that would cover millions of uninsured Americans but also strip millions of American women of reproductive health converge. To the uncompromising went the victory. Is this how it goes these days? By Monday, the president was reminding legislators that "this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill." Some senators were insisting that cooler heads would prevail in their chamber. More than 40 prochoice representatives who had reluctantly voted for the bill signed a letter threatening to oppose any version that came out of conference committee with these same restrictions. But the balance and the burden shifted. It's now abortion rights supporters being told they must make further concessions or lose health care reform altogether. And, as Colorado Representative Diana DeGette said, "a lot of the people are angry. They feel like the liberals and progressives always cave in because they want the bigger goal. We have to draw the line somewhere." Where exactly do you draw a line when the opposition keeps moving it? How do you compromise with those who are uncompromising? These questions are too common in our polarized climate, but the stakes are even higher in this debate. Click here for full text.
| 
