Here is what is going on politically: In this public appearance Nancy Pelosi says the Catholic Church wants to ban contraceptives.
This is part of a political ploy in election year. The HHS Mandate was a set up. It wasn't about women's health. It wasn't about contraceptives per se. It was a way to set the Catholic Church against the Obama administration and then, by November, to portray the Catholic Church and the Republican party as being in an anti-contraception alliance.
Nothing wins over the crowds more effectively than a common enemy, and who better a common enemy than the Catholic Church with their weird "anti contraception" and no free sex rules?
They will try to say that not only is the Catholic Church opposed to contraception, but it wants to ban it. Pelosi's comments prove it. The stage for this make believe drama was first set by George Stephanapolos' question to Romney in a debate. He asked, "Do you think a State has a right to ban contraception?" Romney was floored. Where did he get such a crazy idea? Stephanapolos hammered away, not allowing evasion. Then at last week's debate the CNN moderator asked a similar question: "Which candidate is in favor of contraception?"
This political ploy will accomplish several things for the President: 1. By shifting the abortion debate away from abortion to contraception the two things will be merged. Indeed, they may well use Catholic and pro-life rhetoric in order to show that abortion and contraception are linked. The reasoning on the left will be: "Nobody is against contraception. Abortion is a form of contraception. Abortion is legal. So cut the anti abortion argument. It just doesn't apply because everybody is already in favor of contraception. 2. The Republicans (especially if Santorum continues to rise and is even nominated) will be portrayed as being allied to the Catholic Church. This will allow all the historic anti-Catholic rhetoric to be brought out, but this time not by anti-Catholic Protestants, but by radical atheists and secularists who hate the Catholic Church. 3. After the election the POTUS will see the imminent defeat of this HHS Mandate, and happily put it on one side and grant everybody an exemption who wants one, because it wasn't about health care for poor women to start with.
It was about winning the election.
I completely agree; the Pelosi comment is just further evidence. I think we got played, basically: the administration knew exactly how the bishops would react, having met with then-Archbishop Dolan. Santorum is just a chess piece here, too; it's not clear to me how it would be possible to change the narrative. I think that we could--but I'm not sure it will happen. People who think this admin. is somehow incompetent are fooling themselves. People who are clinging to the idea that this is a good admin. are bordering on insanity.
ReplyDeleteVery insightful Father. The fury last month between Planned Parenthood and SGK was all part of the ploy.
ReplyDeleteSo true! I've thought the same thing since I first heard about this mandate. Everything Obama does is about re-election and keeping the "power". His concept of "helping the poor" is to "keep the power". This will of course ultimately bring down the poor further and further. It's not hard to see Obama's plan, but most people don't even seem to care. It's sad. Christians must stand against this!
ReplyDeleteWow, how sooo true. He will allow us to get lulled back into complacency by taking away the issue upon reelection.
ReplyDeleteI am sure he is not even close to remaking secular America.
So it's on us not to let up on our faith conversion and hashing out these truths in our Church for the benefit of building up the Church and bringing more into the fold.
Obama underestimates the intelligence of the electorate. The Bishops reacted correctly, and Obama's motivation is obvious. What more could we ask for? I hope he continues to over-play his hand all the way to inevitable defeat.
ReplyDeleteA Santorum nomination would play directly into the liberals' hands. His brash, clumsy, and sometimes tactless style makes him a terrible standard bearer for the Christian Cause, at least on a presidential level. He also has said the he would be the first president to talk about the "dangers of contraception." I mean, it would be so easy to paint him as the guy who wants to ban contraceptives that it's a disaster just waiting to happen.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if this law student, latest sorry pawn of the pelvic left, via congressional hearings could have been described more properly in Thursday and Friday's readings from your book, The Gargoyle Code. I don't think you went quite far enough though because I think you left out "and the taxpayers will pay for it." 40+ years of how sad. Fr. L. I hope you are less of a profit than you seem to be in your writings.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, of course. But this is the sort of thing that happens when you stick with the strange American idea that healthcare is part of the employer-employee relationship. Forget that you are so used to it, and just think about it for a moment. It's insane.
ReplyDeleteAlmost as insane as spending a higher proportion of your national income on healthcare for a minority (through Medicare and Medicaid) than, for example, Britain spends on universal provision.