You Can't Be Any Poorer than Unborn

“There will be nothing left but a loathsome thing called Social Service.”
--G.K. Chesterton

This business with the liberal Catholic sisters publicly endorsing the Senate health-care bill -- “This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it”-- is almost too personally depressing for me to comment on. But here goes.

Michelle Bachman told Bill Bennett on Thursday she watched Nancy Pelosi working the aisle in the House Wednesday with this letter in her hand, using it to persuade pro-life Congressmen to switch their no votes to yes. In today’s Detroit Free Press it’s reported that U.S. Rep. Dale Kildee, a no-longer pro-life Democrat who became convinced he could switch his “no” to “yes” on Wednesday, “after seeking counsel from my priest.”

That means to me that, if this health-care bill is passed, and taxpayer funding once again resumes for abortions, (which it will), that the actions of these religious will have played a direct role in providing those abortions.

Neil Cavuto conducted an utterly horrible interview Friday with Sr. Simone Campbell, the liberal activist who drafted the letter. In spite of Cavuto’sweak questioning, her viewpoint was clear for me, I guess because her personality exudes that simple and cheerful social-gospel certainty that’s carried her through a long career of political action as a member of a religious order with the highly unfragrant denotation of the Sisters of Social Service.

My impression is that she’s utterly sincere when she says that she doesn’t think the bill will pay for abortions, and that, of course, it will be a boon to Poor People.. “Oh, no,” she says, regretfully, at Cavuto’s mention of consternation amongst the bishops as a result of her views. “Oh--yes,” she says, even more regretfully, at the mention of the name of Father Frank Pavone, pro-life champion who denounces the Senate bill.

Sister Simone is pro-life in that passive, harmless way required of pro-lifers who owe a superior obligation to building the earthly City of God, a town whose street plan has a suspicious similarity to the liberal Democrat Utopia--and where a woman’s right to choose is unhindered.

In her anxiousness to see a national health plan, Sister flies right past all the concerns raised by Stupak, the American bishops, etc., by pleading that “abortion is taken care of” in the Senate bill, when it certainly is not taken care of. Her view on that never engages the considered opinions of others who explain in detail why that’s not true (or at least Cavuto never offered her the chance to engage that). What makes her so confident? “I believe the bill,” says Sister Simone.

Believes the bill? Sister Simone has no right to believe the bill. She has no right to disregard the scores of obstructive actions taken by her co-partisans in the Democratic Congress to make sure that language guaranteeing that “abortion is taken care of” never becomes an explicit prohibition in the bill.

Sister Simone is willing to gamble the lives of the unborn on the long shot that the Obama health care jackpot really will abolish death for anyone ever again from the mysterious but preventable disease of “lack of affordable health care.”

This is a life issue, says Sister, a Gospel issue. “Jesus would do it,” she says. “It’s about Jesus saying, ‘Care for those in need.’”

Is that what Jesus said?

I expect that when Sister Simone Campbell says “I believe the bill,” what she really means is, “I believe Obama.” When the Social Service Deity finally sends His prophet, could he possibly be any more perfect than Barack Hussein Obama?

And when Sister says, “It’s about Jesus saying, ‘Care for those in need,’” it’s really about Sister Simone Campbell, perhaps she needs some religious validation for a lifetime community organizing on behalf a materialist political ideology that’s never had much use for the things of God.

Religious liberals believe they can silence all contradiction by claiming their actions are all based upon Christ’s (The Great Social Worker’) overarching concern for the poor.

But talking about the poor, and those in need, means less than nothing if you are ignoring the poorest and neediest of all: the unborn child who’s mother, regardless if she’s poor or rich, doesn’t want him.