Suffer the poor

Via Dammit Janet!

Not all preachers, parsons, pastors and priests are against a woman's right to choose. There are even ---  shriek! -- Catholics for Choice. As they say on their website:

We are part of the great majority of the faithful in the Catholic church who disagrees with the dictates of the Vatican on matters related to sex, marriage, family life and motherhood. We are part of the great majority who believes that Catholic teachings on conscience mean that every individual must follow his or her own conscience ― and respect others' right to do the same.

Here are some very thoughtful words from one man of the cloth who understands that, if you deprive women of access to public funding for abortions -- as looks to be the case right now in the US with the ''Stupak amendment'' and other measures and, given the anti-choice crowd's druthers, might eventually be the same in Canada -- wealthier women will get by. 

We know how to reduce the actual number of abortions. The most effective means is to reduce poverty among young women and children. When having a child does not present such an insurmountable economic crisis the decision to abort a pregnancy becomes much less attractive. However, actually reducing the number of abortions is a matter of substance and that is almost never discussed.

Most commonly we talk about making choice illegal. With the Stupak amendment added to the health care reform bill, anti-abortion Democrats have once again chosen symbolism over substance. So, if we restrict insurance coverage of abortion services then which abortions are being stopped? Obviously, the only women who lose choice are the poor who cannot pay for an abortion. Stupak returns us to the days before Roe v. Wade when the daughters of the rich and the middle class were forced to take a three-day trip to Europe when they wanted to terminate a pregnancy.

Catholic bishops join arms with conservative politicians and force upon the public legislation which, and don't kid yourself about it, it only means, "We impose a burden upon poor women which we would not dream of imposing on the middle and upper class." Otherwise, why wouldn't they be discussing making it illegal to get an abortion at all, arresting women of means in the airport when they returned from France or Spain after exercising their "choice?" Because, if they impose these standards on their own members you would find a lot of politicians, Catholic bishops and evangelical preachers working the drive-through windows at local fast food restaurants. They can be high and mighty forcing the poor to be ethical for them but they would never accept such regulation of their own family or constituency. This is the hypocrisy of choosing symbolic action over substance.

The politicians and religious leaders who are offering us the Stupak amendment are the same ones who have failed to act substantively to improve the plight of poor children in our nation by actually making health care, education and housing available so that the real abortion numbers would go down. Poor women are already the most vulnerable people in our society.

It's the poor who will bear the brunt of these punishing acts.

Ah yes. The poor, the meek, the defenceless, the voiceless.

Because, Lord knows, as they continue to maintain their glorious, gilded churches without paying taxes, they should keep their noses out of state affairs -- and women's crotches. You can't be a charity and a lobby group.

Although some try to get away with it.

Comments

[Jim M]

Sometimes it seems like the no man's land between Godless pro-choice and religious anti-choice forces should be called the Rodney Dangerfield zone, but at least this post recognizes and gives some credit to pro-choice Catholics and one reverend (albeit after an audible shriek). Of course, I can easily imagine worse places to be trapped in than the Rodney Dangerfield zone, such as a being painted into a corner designed to prevent me from safeguarding myself against clear and present dangers.
The pro-life movement seems too preoccupied with life before birth and after death to appreciate the significance of what happens in between. It could be that the only moral high ground they can find left to occupy is in invisible worlds. Meanwhile, the big mess they help to create daily on their stopover here, for which they seem to accept little if any responsibility, grows daily, obviously leading many couples to choose abortion as a way to spare the child from having to live in a dangerous world controlled by warring hypocrites, just passing through.

[Jim M]

Second point in the viscous triangle of pro-life hypocrisy (could be an octagon, for all I know), is outlined in an article linked above and repeated below, written by a pro-choice Christian pastor. He calls it the hypocrisy of choosing symbolic action over substance. Obviously, many pro-lifers have chosen abortion for themselves once or more times in the past. Meanwhile, I am under the impression that Catholic women are subject to excommunication if they have abortions for reasons that violate Church guidelines. Although, the guidelines look fairly loose to me compared to the rhetoric of pro-life Catholics. Any abortion that is not simply for birth-control type convenience is allowable according to those guidelines, the way I read them (right side up). Still, as the reverend points out in the article, pro-lifers "can be high and mighty forcing the poor to be ethical for them but they would never accept such regulation of their own family or constituency." http://www.news-leader.com/article/20091216/OPINIONS05/912160374/1006/OPINIONS/Abortion-debate-once-again-puts-burden-on-poor-women

Third triangle point is obviously the separation of Church and State hypocrisy of attempting to use the State to ban abortion and same-sex marriage while depending on separation at tax time and when engaged gay couples arrive to browse churches and shop wedding clergy. Excessive giving to churches that operate more like covers for political movements obviously places additional tax burden on unsuspecting taxpayers. Suspecting ones, too.

[Jim M]

I had never heard Charles McVety (of last post link) before. Is he the leader of Canadian Taliban, or just a deputy? His bio reads roughly the same as I would expect a white Mullah Omar's bio to read. Roulette wheel magnet / marked card dealer, specializing in stacked decks.

[Luna]

For what it's worth, the United Church of Canada (Canada's largest Protestant denomination) is officially pro-choice. That mightn't filter back down to every member, but neither does the anti-choice stance of the Catholic church.

My own minister said that although she couldn't foresee herself ever having one, she'd definitely sit with me and hold my hand if I wanted one. That's support!

(http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/policies/1990/a111)

[Jim M]

There must be many pro-life people with honest intentions, but the lack of sincerity of pro-life leaders and their republican guard reminds me of the deceptive presentation made by this young girl, Nayirah, and the other speakers in the following short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv28_q98Xe8