Bad Week for Life

It's humiliating. The spectacle of the Komen Foundation's announcement severing its relationship with Planned Parenthood, and subsequent rout in the face of a firestorm of from abortionists makes the organization the picture of the fool. The affair is a major setback for perhaps the two most important life issues of our day. In the fight against cancer one of the most effective players is badly tarnished, maybe irretrievably. For the pro-life movement it may be one of the biggest public relations disasters since Roe v Wade, worse even than the excommunication of a Phoenix nun for approving an abortion to save the life of the mother.

Komen may have been the most universally respected institution in the country. Those pink ribbons are everywhere. Professional football players were wearing pink shoes for heaven's sake, not necessarily for Komen but a lot of people thought Komen when they saw the shoes. The Race for the Cure draws thousands at events every year in every major city, and makes headline news in every major media outlet. They spend more on cancer research than anybody outside the federal government. To be against Komen was to be for cancer.

Not any more. Nobody respects a fool. You have to be embarrassed for them. They will still do much good work. People will still turn out to support them. But it won't be the same. They will forever be associated with abortion in a way they were not before. They were about cancer, nothing more. Now they are about something else.

Many in the pro-life community boycotted Komen over the years because of the grants some affiliates made to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening. Others including me resisted because the grants were restricted to the stated purpose and there was no endorsement of or cooperation with morally objectionable practices. I can't say that any more. With their very public apology at the national level it's hard to see how they could, in future, object to pretty much anything Planned Parenthood chooses to do with their money. Who would listen? What would Komen do? Defund them again?

The boycotters can't feel vindicated. This whole thing has blown up in their faces too. Obamacare not withstanding, Planned Parenthood has been on the defensive lately with one state after another denying them taxpayer dollars. Now the abortion faithful have been revitalized at a stroke. They have been allowed to portray themselves as standing for women's health. If cancer screening is not provided through the nation's most prominent abortion mill it will not be provided at all. A moral outrage is taking a victory lap.

Pro-life leaders are trying to put a brave face on this, taking refuge in the ambiguity of Komen's statement that Planned Parenthood will be eligible to apply for future grants. It's wishful thinking. This fight is over. There have been too many missed opportunities for dialog for too many years, too much judgement. I can't see why Komen would take much comfort in expressions of support from people who have been so critical of them in the past. No, Komen strayed from the plantation and found it cold outside. They are not likely to stray again

So what are people like me, the sick at heart, the people who hate cancer and hate abortion, what are we to do? First we grieve. Tomorrow we look for something else.

Religious Freedom and Obamacare

Kathleen Sebelius, US Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced in a letter a week ago Friday she had decided reproductive drugs and services including sterilization, birth control drugs, and the abortifacient "morning after pill" are preventive services and, as provided under Obamacare, must be covered under most health insurance policies with no deductible or co-pay. Churches are exempt. Most church affiliated institutions including hospitals and schools have one year to comply.

Traditional media outlets seem to have pretty much missed it. I googled the news for Sebelius and found very little. The Washington Post ran an editorial calling the decision wrong. Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York had a scathing op ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. No other big city newspaper and none of the TV news outlets mentioned the letter.

Archbishop Dolan felt betrayed. He thought he had President Obama's word that Catholic conscience would be respected. It was not. Catholic Health Association, the major organization representing Catholic hospitals can't feel any better. They supported obamacare thinking existing law would prevent public funding of abortions in the absence of specific language in the new legislation. It has not.

In the Diocese of Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell had his own letter read at every Mass this weekend denouncing the policy as an unconstitutional affront to religious freedom, vowing not to follow it, and calling on Catholics to appeal to their legislators to have it overturned. I suspect something similar is happening in every diocese across the country.

The bishops are right to be concerned. So should anyone who values religious freedom. Catholics and others are being told they must pay for things they consider morally wrong. Even if you disagree with church doctrine on birth control, as many Catholics do, surely religious organizations have a right to follow their own consciences. The bishops are also right to go directly to Catholics. Else the studied silence from the media might effectively shield politicians from repercussions. Several people I spoke with after Mass this morning hadn't heard about the policy.

This was actually the second big event in two days essentially ignored by the pro-abortion media. Massive pro-life rallies on Saturday marking the anniversary of Roe v Wade also went largely unreported. There were tens of thousands of marchers in Washington DC; no mention in the New York Times, not a word.

There could be a silver lining in this. More and more young people are describing themselves as pro-life. They have become a very visible presence at rallies. That sort of activism probably won't translate to a massive rejection of contraceptives but a bone headed move like the Sebelius letter sometimes gets people's attention. Young people especially are sensitive to rights violations, even when it isn't their own rights being violated.

I expect the story to have legs. The rule will certainly be challenged in the courts. I will be surprised if it isn't over turned, one more tear in the increasingly shabby fabric of obamacare. After all, it does look like a pretty clear violation of the first amendment. The process will keep the story alive on the blogosphere regardless of what the traditional media do. We could see new energy in the whole debate; from the pro-life community,. from Catholics and other religious who may not normally be active on social issues, and from tea party conservatives who just don't like obamacare. Stay tuned.

Just Money and Finance

The global financial crisis that began in the US with the housing bubble (or was it $4 gasoline?) is well into its fourth year now with no end in sight. In October the Vatican Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace decided to, well, pontificate on the subject. They published a serious reflection on the implications of globalization generally and especially for the world’s economy, the impact on the poor, the need for more effective regulation, and a broad outline for what reform should look like. It isn’t light reading but it is a worthwhile treatment of a poorly understood topic that affects us all, and how Catholics might look at it from the perspective of our faith.

As have Popes at least since Paul VI, the Council advocates a new system of governance that will move us beyond the arrangement of sovereign nation states that has prevailed since the Peace of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War in 1648. They are suggesting it is time to yield some of that sovereignty in favor of a global authority, one that will govern in a spirit of solidarity and subsidiarity that sounds a lot like federalism on a global scale, a scale that should include every country on the planet. The efficacy of every law and regulation would be weighed in light of the common good, with of course an appropriate preference for the needs of the poor. The new authority would step in only where individual states are unable or unwilling to adequately address the issue at hand.

The Council has a strong case, pointing out the increasing interdependence that has brought the world so much prosperity since the end of WWII. They think that is a good thing, though not without its flaws and dangers, not least in the evolving monetary and financial systems. There are still billions who have not prospered and the risks have become increasingly evident. In the 1970s we had the shock of a spike in oil prices that sent national economies reeling. Then came regional financial crises in Mexico and Asia. This one is different, spreading from America to Europe and around the world with the potential to do more damage than anything we’ve seen in decades.

The institutions established at Bretton Woods in 1944 are no longer adequate to control the enormous growth in credit and the massive flows of capital, often in the form of complex financial instruments no one fully understands or adequately regulates. Financial markets have exploded, far outstripping the growth in “real” economies, the underlying production of goods and services. The result is a vulnerability to economic collapse the world cannot long tolerate, and of course the effects are felt worst among the poor. The Council’s solution is a global authority with the power to regulate international and perhaps intranational financial transactions.

The Council is right but I can’t imaging there will be much talk of a new global “authority” in this year’s American presidential elections. If there is it will be one candidate accusing another of some sort of dark international conspiracy to undermine the US Constitution. We need to start the conversation though. We are all on this planet together and there are now seven billion of us. We need mechanisms in place to manage the risks and opportunities all those people represent. They need to be implemented for the common good, and without unnecessarily usurping the rights of regions, nations, communities, and families to govern themselves.

This new Vatican document didn’t get much publicity. The Global financial crisis didn’t make it into Faithful Citizenship, the US Bishops’ quadrennial review of issues for Catholics to consider in the election cycle. It should have.

All Things in Moderation

When did moderate become a four letter word? Republicans in red states have been running on the “I’m more conservative than you are” mantra for a while now. Rick Perry used it in the last Texas gubernatorial primary and it was enough to beat Kay Bailey Hutchison. In the general election no Democrat not named Attila stood a chance. I can’t remember another talking point in the Perry campaign and I suspect I am not alone. It seemed he couldn’t string three sentences together without using the word conservative. In the presidential race he still can’t, and neither can a half dozen other candidates vying for the label.

Now it’s being taken to a new level. Newt Gingrich is in New Hampshire accusing Mitt Romney of being a moderate, as though the offense if not intrinsically evil is at least a venal sin. And I’m seeing attack ads on television with the same charge against Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, citing newspaper excerpts as evidence.

Politics is often described as the art of the possible. I remember when pragmatism was a virtue in a politician. Nowadays any compromise is selling out to the devil. Is anybody that conservative on every issue? I don’t see how. How can you be pro-life and pro-death penalty? How can you call yourself Christian and advocate deporting 12 million undocumented aliens? How do you save Medicare and cut payment rates to the point where doctors can’t afford to accept it? It’s committing intellectual suicide.

This is not a good thing. I’m criticizing Republicans because with the only contested presidential primary they are more in the news with their appeals to mindless ideology. Democrats are just as bad, and just as inconsistent with their calls for income equality to be achieved by making everyone poorer. Do they really think they can save the planet by dismantling the industrial revolution? Did anyone else notice they supported war in Iraq at the beginning, then turned against it when the going got rough? We have become so polarized that even the science of global warming is a political issue. You can pretty much tell a person’s party by whether he or she thinks it is man made.

We’ve got serious issues to deal with. We need thoughtful people to deal with them. And we need a reasoned national discussion to work out responsible approaches to them. Nothing is likely to satisfy everyone. There is no perfect solution to illegal immigration, entitlement reform, the debt crisis, or a dozen other urgent concerns. We may never reach a national consensus on gay marriage, abortion, health insurance, global warming, free trade, or even school choice. But shouting at one another over hard drawn left/right battle lines isn’t going to help.

Some pundits have commented that Barack Obama’s presidency is failing because he has tried to govern a center right nation from the left. There is probably some truth to that but I doubt that countering with a hard right strategy is any way to win an election.

Barry Goldwater famously said “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice” and “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Lyndon Johnson used the quote to paint him as a war monger, beat him in a landslide, and promptly led us into war in Vietnam. I voted for Goldwater and supported the war in Vietnam but it’s time we let our politicians know once again that sort of rhetoric is not acceptable. Moderation, pragmatism, and civility in public discourse are indeed virtues where they serve to advance the cause of justice. Extremism is always a vice when it leads to unnecessary and damaging conflict, even in defense of liberty.

Poverty in Plano

Our mayor likes to say that Plano has the highest median income of any US city with a population over 200,000. I wish he would stop. The factoid reinforces a false but persistent notion that we don’t have poverty here. The truth is a lost job can move a Plano family from lavish lifestyle to the poorhouse in a thrice, just like anyplace else.

I count at least 27 food pantries in our city, mostly run or supported by churches, synagogues, and mosques. There is no shortage of need. Minnie’s Food Pantry, the one my parish supports, makes the news occasionally when their shelves go empty. It isn’t unusual to see someone drive up to Minnie’s in a Cadillac Escalade to pick up the family’s food for the week. The salary that was to have paid for the car is gone and they may be on the verge of losing their home. We lost a lot of those salaries in the Y2K telecom bust and in the heavy rounds of layoffs that have continued ever since. More than a few homes have been lost too. Samaritan Inn, the one shelter in the county that can accommodate families, turns away fifty or so people every week, about a third of them children, many from Plano.

The Plano school district sends a bus to McKinney every morning to collect children enrolled in our schools, but living at Samaritan Inn. Just because they are in a homeless shelter doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be in school, or necessarily have to change schools right away. Over 20% of school children in the district qualify for the free or discounted breakfast, lunch, and snack programs. That means their families have incomes no more than 185% of the federal poverty level. They tell me Mondays and Fridays are the days with highest attendance because the schools also have a back pack program so the kids don’t go hungry over the weekend. If they don’t bring in the empty back pack on Monday they can’t expect the school to fill it on Friday.

Then there are the free clinics. The one I’m most familiar with is the Collin County Adult Clinic which operates three facilities, one in Frisco and two in Plano. Like the official county program, which pays for emergency room visits at Primacare for eligible, enrolled patients, and for a new program that allows them access to volunteer physicians in the doctors’ regular offices, the Adult Clinic accepts county residents who have incomes no more than 200% of the poverty level and no insurance. Unlike the official county programs they don’t check immigration status. They see about 1100 patients 5000 times per year at the two Plano facilities, most of them apparently legal, all of them residents of the most affluent major city in the country. I don’t see any statistics on the web site for the county health department which operates the taxpayer funded programs.

The point of all this is there is more poverty here than most of us realize. Some of it is chronic, some is associated with undocumented immigrants, but a lot of it is among people who have hit a rough spot in life and just need a little time and assistance getting back on their feet. The false perception they aren’t here gets in the way.

We know there is a need for a second homeless shelter for families. We also need more and better workforce development programs for people who don’t have skills needed for jobs offering living wages and career paths that will allow them to support families. We know we have food insecurity here and we know our indigent health care programs still have shortcomings. Maybe with better data we can dispel some false notions and begin to think about doing mare about these issues. First we all need to understand the poverty is real, right here in well to do Plano.

BRIC a BRAC

When former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk went to Washington as US Trade Representative, some wag suggested he take along a good book. It was an apt comment. It did look like he would have some time on his hands. International trade was going nowhere. Agreements negotiated during the Bush administration were gathering dust, the Doha round of WTO talks was stalled with no progress expected, even NAFTA was threatened. There really didn’t seem to be much to negotiate and in fact not much happened for two and a half years.

But over the last couple of months there has been a startling resurgence in trade developments. First a ban on Mexican trucking in the US was lifted, at least temporarily, and Mexico dropped a number of retaliatory tariffs. Then long dormant agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia were approved by congress and signed into law. At a meeting in Hawaii President Obama announced he expects to complete negotiations early next year for US participation in the eighteen nation Trans Pacific Partnership. Japan applied to join shortly after. Canada may soon follow. In two weeks Russia will almost certainly be invited into the WTO and, lastly, the US has entered into talks for a deal with the European Union. I hope Mr. Kirk finished his book.

Free trade purists and advocates for the poor like me would prefer all this be done through the WTO in part because, with the exception of Russian accession to the WTO, none of it involves the BRICs, the four major emerging economies that many expect to be the juggernauts of the new century. But maybe there is a silver lining here. Brazil, Russia, India, and China all have to be apprehensive at being excluded from trading blocs that account for so much of the world’s commerce. And a major reason Doha stalled is that under developed members balked at additional reforms required to move it forward. The majors are essentially saying OK, we will do it without you. If that prompts some rethinking among the BRICs, so much the better.

I wish the church had more to say on this. The USCCB Pastoral Letter Economic Justice for All dates from 1986 and, aside from setting out a few principles and expressing special concern for the poor, it hardly mentions trade. Other than an endorsement of fair trade practices, the bishops have had little to say on specific trade proposals. Fair trade’s potential to overcome poverty is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. Looking back over the years since WWII, expanding international trade has had a great deal to do with the emergence of untold millions from abject poverty into the middle class. It looks to do it again over the coming decades. If we are as concerned about the plight of the poor as we claim to be, we should be at the forefront on this issue. We have an opportunity to do real good and instead we sit on the sidelines.

It seems to me increased integration of the world’s most developed economies, and a significant number of the not so developed, would provide powerful incentives for BRICs and others to join in, and to adopt market, legal, and social reforms entry would require. That would be good, right? It is exactly what happened with the WTO and, imperfect as it is, WTO has been a healthy development for all its members. By actively promoting such arrangements the church would be in a better position to influence terms, and to help protect the interests of the poor who are often the most vulnerable to increased outside competition, at least in the short term. Shouldn’t we be doing that rather than be left complaining about negative effects after the fact?

Withdrawing from the World

The pro-life boycott of the Susan G. Komen Foundation is growing. There are now about a dozen (of 195) Roman Catholic Dioceses in the US that have notified Catholic organizations within their jurisdictions they should not support the Race for the Cure. As far as I can tell none of them ban individual Catholics from participation. That is left to personal conscience. Most dioceses take no official position.

The objecting bishops differ with Komen over what they consider serious moral issues, essentially maintaining that support for Komen can amount to cooperating with evil. I would counter that the boycott itself works to deprive the world of an unequivocal good (fighting cancer) to no discernable benefit.

The issues mostly have to do with Komen’s financial support for breast cancer screening and educational services provided at Planned Parenthood facilities, denial of any proven link between induced abortion and increased risk of breast cancer, and refusal to rule out stem cell research involving destruction of human embryos.

Komen responds that they have controls in place to ensure all funds go to breast cancer related purposes specified in grants. There is no evidence any of their money has gone toward morally objectionable uses. They do not warn women of abortion related cancer risk because neither the American Cancer Society nor the National Institute of Health, nor any other major health organization acknowledges such a link. And so far they have not funded any embryonic stem cell research, though some of their research is done at institutions where other projects do involve embryos.

The boycott is a mistake. It makes the pro-life community, and by extension Catholics in general, appear narrow minded and dogmatic. Some of what I see on the internet is more than just narrow minded. Much of it is not true. Some of it is slander. In singling out Komen the boycott pits us against an almost universally respected institution and one of the most widely supported charities in the country, one against whom most reasonable people would reject charges of ties to abortion. Komen is about breast cancer, not abortion. To equate the foundation with evil is over the top. Shrill voices don’t win a lot of friends.

After all, the State of Texas funds breast and cervical cancer services for eligible women through private clinics in every county. In Collin County there are three, all of them Planned Parenthood. Do I stop paying my taxes? No but I can and have lobbied elected officials to find other providers. Abortion is far more prevalent in China than here. Even forced abortion is common. Every time I turn on the lights I use electricity produced in part from wind turbines made in China. Do I sit in the dark? No but I do advocate using trade ties to pressure the Chinese to improve human rights practices.

The number of dioceses participating in the boycott remains small, but the trend is worrisome. Some dioceses haven even stopped supporting Catholic Campaign for Human Development on grounds they work with groups they don’t approve of. That’s a mistake too. The anti-poverty CCHD does a lot of good work and, like Komen, is very careful to see to it their money goes where it is intended.

The church is a powerful voice on all sorts of important social issues, including right to life, poverty, immigration reform, school choice, the family, and a host of others. To be effective we have to work in this world with people we sometimes disagree with on serious matters. Otherwise we will never accomplish much that’s worthwhile.