Tuesday, March 16, 2010
On Abortion and Health Care Reform
I recognize that one of the stickiest issues in the intersection between faith and politics is that of abortion. Though I disagree with some positions taken by self-described "pro-life" people, I do believe I understand their position and can appreciate where they are coming from.
There has recently been considerable publicity and energy over whether or not the current reforms before Congress would actually encourage more abortion. I am aware of 0 people on either side of this debate who actually would advocate for more abortions. Thus, this is a considerable charge.
However, I believe that much of the rhetoric around abortion and health care reform has failed to live up to reality. Thus, I encourage all to read this article explaining just what the Senate Health Care Bill (the only one that is on the path to approval) does and doesn't do.
Charge: Health care reform will allow federal funding for abortions through community clinics:
Charge: Health care reform will force American's to subsidize abortions.
Furthermore, there are a number of provisions in the bill that are likely to reduce the number of abortions. The bill
Thus, fair minded people may oppose health care reform for a variety of reasons. Abortion, or the fear of increased abortions, ought not be one.
There has recently been considerable publicity and energy over whether or not the current reforms before Congress would actually encourage more abortion. I am aware of 0 people on either side of this debate who actually would advocate for more abortions. Thus, this is a considerable charge.
However, I believe that much of the rhetoric around abortion and health care reform has failed to live up to reality. Thus, I encourage all to read this article explaining just what the Senate Health Care Bill (the only one that is on the path to approval) does and doesn't do.
Charge: Health care reform will allow federal funding for abortions through community clinics:
Fact: "None of the 1,250 Federally Qualified Health Centers, or FQHCs, that would receive the billions in money through the reform bill offer abortion services."
Charge: Health care reform will force American's to subsidize abortions.
Fact: " The Senate bill with the Nelson language says an insurance plan in the exchange can offer abortion coverage, but a woman who wants it must pay for that element of the coverage by a separate check that goes into a separate account."Charge: All American's will be required to pay a special fee to cover abortion:
Fact: "The reality is only those who elect to choose a policy that includes abortion would have to pay the separate fee, and that is designed to keep federal dollars from potentially paying for abortions."Charge: Abortion will be forced on states where voters have chosen to make obtaining an abortion difficult.
Fact: "The Senate bill also explicitly allows states to bar any policies in the federally created insurance exchanges from providing abortion coverage."
Furthermore, there are a number of provisions in the bill that are likely to reduce the number of abortions. The bill
"includes key elements of the Pregnant Women's Support Act that have long been sought by abortion foes: One is to appropriate $250 million over 10 years to create a federal Pregnancy Assistance Fund, which will provide assistance to pregnant and parenting teenagers and college students, as well as pregnant victims of domestic violence; another Senate provision not in the House bill would increase federal financing for adoption by $1.2 billion over the next two years."Additionally, there is some evidence showing that people with insurance coverage are far less likely to receive an abortion than those who are uninsured.
Thus, fair minded people may oppose health care reform for a variety of reasons. Abortion, or the fear of increased abortions, ought not be one.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Faith and Wealth
This is an interesting chart to ponder. It did challenge my expectation that Evangelicals would be wealthier then the average Christian. That's a shame- I always blame them for the prosperity Gospel. Perhaps I need to look a bit closer to home.
h/t: Andrew Sullivan
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A Conservative Voice Against Torture
I'm often accused of approaching political issues with a left-leaning bias. I plead guilty! Despite this, I do not believe I hold most of my positions out of fealty to a particular political party, but out of core principals that I draw from studying politics and policy in light of my faith.
As such, I often think the positions I hold on moral issues are those that do not cut strictly down the liberal-conservative moral divide. While I may espouse liberalism in the laws passed by the government, this does not mean I believe in an anything-goes world.
I say this because I’m about to tread into an issue where I have been accused of being a softhearted liberal. I am continually amazed by the cavalier way in which many American Christians accept the use of torture in a variety of circumstances. I just don’t see how this squares with our desire to be re-formed (re-born) in the image of Christ. I was thus pleased to see that a Christian writer at the arch-conservative website National Review Online agrees:
It’s not just a black spot on America. It is a black spot on American Christianity. I encourage you to read this conservative’s wrestling on the issue. He is honest about its complexity- perhaps more honest then I could manage. I applaud him for exploring the issue, and hope many more Christians of all ideologies can follow his example.
If, like me, you think your church is crying out for a frank discussion on this issue, this article published in the United Methodist Faith in Action newsletter will give you a place to start.
As such, I often think the positions I hold on moral issues are those that do not cut strictly down the liberal-conservative moral divide. While I may espouse liberalism in the laws passed by the government, this does not mean I believe in an anything-goes world.
I say this because I’m about to tread into an issue where I have been accused of being a softhearted liberal. I am continually amazed by the cavalier way in which many American Christians accept the use of torture in a variety of circumstances. I just don’t see how this squares with our desire to be re-formed (re-born) in the image of Christ. I was thus pleased to see that a Christian writer at the arch-conservative website National Review Online agrees:
I think torture is a great evil, and that the resort to it in the past decade is a black spot on America’s record.
It’s not just a black spot on America. It is a black spot on American Christianity. I encourage you to read this conservative’s wrestling on the issue. He is honest about its complexity- perhaps more honest then I could manage. I applaud him for exploring the issue, and hope many more Christians of all ideologies can follow his example.
If, like me, you think your church is crying out for a frank discussion on this issue, this article published in the United Methodist Faith in Action newsletter will give you a place to start.
Labels:
Christianity,
national review online,
torture
Monday, March 1, 2010
Re: Our paralyzed Government
A friend responds:
Furthermore, for the individual, there is absolutely nothing preventing them from donating money to faith-based institutions to do this charity work. Want to pay less taxes? Donate more of your money! Every dollar you donate to a non-profit is one less dollar that is taxed by the government.
My conservative and libertarian brothers and sisters- the opportunity to stop sending money to the government by giving it to charities is hanging out there. Nobody can stop you. You just have to be willing to give it away.
"I don't see how sending more money, nor having the gov't spend more money, is necessarily advocating for the poor given the abysmal efficiency and track record of gov't poverty measures. And, of course, there's that teach a man to fish/give a man a fish thing. The worst thing that happened to the poor (and the church, for that matter) was the gov't takeover of charity."I wanted to respond on the blog because it taps into something I've been meaning to write about. I often hear people say that the government took away what the church should be doing. How exactly did it do that? There is certainly no law prohibiting denominations from setting up new hospitals, new food pantries, private schools etc. There is absolutely nothing that prevents a rich church in the suburbs from diverting their $500,000+ budget away from internal expenses and toward outreach ministry to the communities around them.
Furthermore, for the individual, there is absolutely nothing preventing them from donating money to faith-based institutions to do this charity work. Want to pay less taxes? Donate more of your money! Every dollar you donate to a non-profit is one less dollar that is taxed by the government.
My conservative and libertarian brothers and sisters- the opportunity to stop sending money to the government by giving it to charities is hanging out there. Nobody can stop you. You just have to be willing to give it away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

