The American Principles Project has been at the forefront of what I believe to be the most important fight within the Right going on today: whether or not conservatism is going to remain pro-life and pro-family, or if it’s going to degenerate into a slightly less embarrassing version of libertarianism. I’d like to call your attention to their blog, Get Conservative, which has a petition you should sign to voice your support for all of conservatism’s indivisible facets.
social issues
ALL Alert: Catholics vs. Catholic Health Association
This just in, from Michael Hichborn at American Life League:
CATHOLICS URGE BISHOPS TO END RELATIONSHIP WITH CATHOLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION
Washington, DC (9 February 2011) – American Life League is urging the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to dissolve its relationship with the Catholic Health Association, following a series of reports linking CHA to support for abortion.
American Life League cited the following reasons for the USCCB to end its ties with CHA:
• CHA fully endorsed pro-abortion Obamacare, in direct opposition to the U.S. bishops
• CHA member Catholic Healthcare West gives millions of dollars to pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage organizations
• CHA’s recent Chairman of the Board was a “co-architect” in the creation of Healthy San Francisco, which covers birth control and abortion on demand
• CHA president, Sr. Carol Keehan, maintains a duplicitous position in claiming that local bishops have the authority to interpret the U.S. bishops’ ethical and religious directives (ERD), while maintaining that St. Joseph’s Hospital properly applied the ERDs in approving and performing an abortion in 2009.
“It’s clear that CHA is more interested in politics and money than maintaining Catholic teaching,” said Michael Hichborn, director of American Life League’s project, Defend the Faith.
Last month, in an online video report entitled, “Nun-Catholic Healthcare,” ALL revealed that CHA spends one fourth of its annual budget to pay its six highest paid employees, including Sr. Keehan’s $900,000 salary.
“When one considers that the mission of the USCCB is to ‘support the ministry of bishops with an emphasis on evangelization,’ maintaining a relationship with a group like CHA can only hinder that mission,” said Hichborn.
American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Jim Sedlak at 540.659.7685.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Watch ALL’s Nun-Catholic Healthcare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOokPjKhFQE
Read latest news story on this: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-health-association-reiterates-support-for-former-catholic-hospital
Leon Wolf, Scourge of Pseudo-Cons Everywhere
Leon Wolf, author of a gloriously merciless review of Meghan McCain’s book Dirty Sexy Politics, has a couple of excellent posts up at RedState taking to the woodshed some not-so-conservative views and figures who reside on the Right.
First, CPAC and GOProud apologists:
Of course, conservatives have always been willing to wander into the arena of ideas and engage in spirited debate with liberals. Who can forget Buckley’s famous exchanges with Gore Vidal? It positively begs the question, however, to assert that CPAC is a place where this must occur and that conservatives must be willing to attend for this purpose or they are shirking their responsibility.
Many conservatives (including myself) live their lives surrounded by combative liberals, whether in the work place or in our social circles. We are constantly on the defense of our principles. The very reason we attend CPAC is that it is healthy once a year to be around like minded individuals and recharge our batteries for the fight in the upcoming year. It is not the Free Exchange of Ideas and Debate Club Conference. It is the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Of course, the post attempts somewhat to skirt this problem by asserting that conservatives can believe in all kinds of ideas. This assertion is based on a faulty taxonomy of conservatism that could well have been pulled from an essay written by a left-wing journalist assigned to cover conservatives like they were Gorillas in the Mist […]
It is of course the libertarian’s right to believe and think as he does, but it is important for conservatives to be honest with ourselves on this point: many areas in which the libertarian desires to reduce the size and scope of government are borne of fundamentally liberal instincts.
Second, pro-appeasement libertarians:
You see, there is almost nothing more important to Gillespie and his ilk than being blasé about Islamic terrorism. At this point, it has actually become tiresome. Yes, Nick, we are all very impressed at how very little you care about the government protecting the lives of your fellow citizens, and we are all admiringly agape at your daring suggestion that we have nothing to fear from Islamic terrorists. The victims of the families of 9/11, the USS Cole bombing, and the World Trade Center bombing I’m sure find you edgy and cool and would like to hear your views on the relative merits of The White Stripes and The Black Keys at their next cocktail party.
Of course, the real “point” of Gillespie’s post is for a hard-boiled Libertarian to lecture mainstream Republicans on what they ought to do to win elections. Ordinary people might find this as out of place as me lecturing Kobe Bryant on what it takes to win NBA titles, but Gillespie manages the trick with such panache that none of the other authors or commenters at Reason (who are also smarter and much more in tune with todays voters than anyone who might read such a pedestrian site as RedState) seem to notice what a majestic buffoon he makes of himself in the process. To recap, the Republican party has held the White House for 20 of the last 30 years with pro-life, anti-gay marriage candidates; the Libertarian party has never cracked double digits in a Presidential election, ever. Even in 2008, with Republican brand identity at generational lows and a relatively high profile candidate in Bob Barr, the Libertarians managed to get beat by Ralph Nader who was running without the Green Party nomination. If we are smart enough to follow Gillespie’s advice, someday the GOP nominee might well reach the soaring heights of barely beating Cynthia McKinney.
Expert articulation of critical messages. Go read ’em both.
Today’s Snapshot of Conservatism in Crisis
Steven Ertelt at LifeNews reports that GOP presidential wannabe Mitch Daniels still hasn’t gotten the message on the “truce” crap:
“I guess two things,” Daniels added. “One is that, first, those remarks were directed as much to the aggressors on the other side of these questions — for instance, the proponents of gay marriage — as much directed to them as anybody with whom I’m in agreement.”
Asked if liberals have called a truce on social issues, Daniels responded, “No, obviously not. I said I was thinking of them as much as my own allies when I said it,” he said about the truce.
Wait – so you think a.) that liberals would be willing to accept a truce on social issues, and b.) that they’d be willing to do so for the purpose of enacting conservative fiscal reforms? Does anyone else see how mind-blowingly stupid this is? Mitch Daniels is unfit to be president simply for being so clueless.
“The major point, though, was something different, and it was just this: I believe…. that the arithmetic of our times says we are headed for Niagara Falls, fiscally. You cannot run any kind of enterprise — private or public — on a self-governing basis as deeply in hawk as we now are and are going to be,” Daniels added. “…. to change the whole size and scope of the federal government in a radical way, then we are going to need a very broad constituency in this country to do that…. so that’s all I meant, kind of a priority matter, first things first. Maybe we could just concentrate on that for a little while, because I think that’s the most immediate threat to the republic we’ve known.”
The fiscal crisis is already at the forefront of the conservative conversation. There are no social conservatives calling on economic conservatives to put spending, ObamaCare, or any other issues on the back burner for the sake of fighting abortion or preserving marriage. Congressional Republicans are letting us down on the fiscal front, but it’s not because they’re distracted by social issues; it’s because they’re inept and spineless across the board.
Later in the interview, The Hill transcript indicates, Daniels returned to the truce issue, saying fiscal issues should take precedence and social issues like abortion should be “muted” for awhile.
“I would like to think that fixing it and saving our kids future could be a unifying moment for our country and we wouldn’t stop our disagreements or our passionate belief in these other questions, we just sort of mute them for a little while, while we try to come together on the thing that menaces us all,” he concluded.
Let me try to explain something to you, Mitch: abortion isn’t controversial because it’s “sinful” or “distasteful.” It’s controversial because IT KILLS PEOPLE. 1.2 MILLION DEAD BABIES EVERY YEAR. It’s not just another political issue; it’s a human rights crisis. (You claim to be pro-life. There’s no excuse for you to not already get this.) And if you really understood what our Founders thought about the conditions necessary to maintain a free society, you’d see that the fate of marriage has profound implications for America’s fiscal state.
This response is dead on:
“We cannot repair the economy without addressing the deep cultural issues that are tearing apart the family and society,” said Andy Blom, executive director of the American Principles Project. “The conservative movement has always been about addressing ALL issues—economic, social and national security—that are in need of repair.”
“It’s unfortunate Gov. Daniels doesn’t seem to understand the winning philosophy of Ronald Reagan that brought conservatism to victory by addressing all three issues,” said Frank Cannon, President of American Principles Project. “If Mitch Daniels is planning to run for president by running away from social issues, he will face a grassroots revolt.”
“The national furor over the expansion of abortion coverage and efforts to re-define marriage demonstrates the resistance he will face. There is no appetite among grassroots conservatives to run away from these critical issues,” said Mr. Blom. “Mr. Daniels is only causing divisions in the movement by this talk of a ‘truce.’”
I often wonder how many people realize the full extent of just how screwed up the Right is these days. I’m reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s words in Peoria, Illinois. Speaking of a similar cancerous confusion over first principles, he lamented that our “republican robe is soiled, and trailed in the dust.” He said we needed to “repurify it,” to “wash it in white, in the spirit, if not the blood, of the Revolution”:
Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. Let north and south—let all Americans—let all lovers of liberty everywhere—join in the great and good work. If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union; but we shall have so saved it, as to make, and to keep it, forever worthy of the saving. We shall have so saved it, that the succeeding millions of free happy people, the world over, shall rise up, and call us blessed, to the latest generations.
What a Surprise
On December 31, I wrote:
At this point, GOProud’s trustworthiness is in doubt. Their true intention seems to be to drive the Right socially leftward. Here’s another simple test that would reveal a great deal about their real values and priorities. GOProud is in favor of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. So they should answer this question: do you believe Congress gave sufficient consideration to the judgment of American servicemen and military leaders prior to repeal?
On January 12, I decided to pose that question to GOProud. I both emailed and left in the comments of their (then) most recent relevant post the following:
Hello,
I am interested in GOProud’s position on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney has written that “nearly 1200 retired flag and general officers” have “written their own open letter opposing repeal of the ban on homosexuals in the military.” (BigPeace.com, Dec. 17) Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, made the following observations from the survey website:
“[T]he Working Group conceded, ‘Our sense is that the majority of views expressed were against repeal.’’ (p. 49) Not only were these opinions disrespected, Adm. Mike Mullen has already stated more than once that anyone who disagrees with the LGBT law no longer will be welcome to serve.
“In addition to involuntary personnel losses due to Adm. Mullen’s ‘zero tolerance’ of dissent, cross-tabbed data displayed on the 2010 DADT Survey website indicate that among Army combat arms personnel, 21.4% would leave sooner than planned, and 14.6% would think about leaving–a total potential loss of more than a third (36%) of those valuable troops. (DADT Survey Appendix J, p. 53)
“Marine combat arms would be weakened even more, with 32% of Marines saying they would leave sooner than planned, and 16.2% considering an early end to their careers, totaling almost half. (DADT Survey Appendix L, p. 47) The gradual loss of so many combat troops and what the report described as ‘only 12%’ of families likely to decline re-enlistment could put remaining troops in greater danger, and break the All-Volunteer Force. (CRWG Report, p. 4)”
(BigPeace.com, Dec. 19)
That said, my question is: Does GOProud believe Congress gave sufficient consideration to the judgment of American servicemen, military leaders, and defense experts prior to enacting repeal?
Answer? Crickets. Just be careful whether or not you dare mention it – Andrew Breitbart might get “offended.”
Around the Web, GOProud Edition
There are a couple noteworthy things in Los Angeles Times‘ report on the storm brewing over GOProud’s involvement in CPAC. First, the conference has lost its biggest name yet: the Heritage Foundation. Second comes a new indication that tolerating gay people isn’t the problem: “CPAC has refused to schedule a panel about traditional marriage.” Third, the paper quotes Family Research Council president Tony Perkins as emailing to supporters: “Conservatives and homosexuals cannot coexist in a movement predicated on social values.” But that’s not how the quote appears in FRC’s strong public statement: “Conservatives and homosexual activists cannot coexist in a movement predicated on social values.” Either Perkins changed his tune for public consumption, or the LA Times is lying. I’m gonna guess it’s the latter.
At NewsReal, David Swindle and the infamous Ryan Sorba are debating, “should gays be part of the conservative movement?” David’s correct as far as the debate goes, but frankly the whole conversation draws time and attention away from what the GOProud controversy is really about: not gay rights, but whether or not the radical gay agenda is infiltrating the conservative movement.
Speaking of confusing the issue, Andrew Breitbart’s take is more than a little disappointing: “even though I’m sensitive to the social conservative movement […] the treatment that they’re giving gay conservatives at CPAC deeply offends me.” Y’know what offends me, Andrew? Blatant misrepresentation of what’s going on. What treatment? Which gay conservatives have been mistreated? Details, please.
Another Year, Another Scandalous CPAC
A considerable number of conservative organizations – Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, American Principles Project, American Values, Capital Research Center, Center for Military Readiness, Liberty Counsel, National Organization for Marriage, and Media Research Center – are planning on boycotting CPAC 2011 over the participation of gay Republican lobbying group GOProud.
To me, the question of whether or not CPAC should be boycotted over this is kind of pointless – as Ed Morrissey says, CPAC is an awfully diverse bunch, even without ’em:
The conference includes social conservatives, Ron Paul groupies, isolationists, interventionists (the dreaded neo-cons), libertarians, religious organizations (including Muslims), atheists, several flavors of fiscal conservatism, and even the John Birch Society.
Unlike Morrissey, I don’t think the presence of Paulites, isolationists and Birchers at CPAC is necessarily something to celebrate. Where do we draw the line? When have we brought in so many dilutions and mutations of conservatism that it ceases to be conservatism?
GOProud’s defenders are also deluding themselves if they think all GOProud’s interested in is ensuring that gay Americans feel welcome in the movement (a questionable mission in any case – when did the NRA, Club for Growth, or National Right to Life Committee start checking for sexual orientation at the door?). After all, these are the same guys who demanded that the new Congress abandon social issues by dishonestly claiming to speak for the entire Tea Party movement, all the while denigrating their so-called conservative “allies” as “special interests.”
At this point, GOProud’s trustworthiness is in doubt. Their true intention seems to be to drive the Right socially leftward. Here’s another simple test that would reveal a great deal about their real values and priorities. GOProud is in favor of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. So they should answer this question: do you believe Congress gave sufficient consideration to the judgment of American servicemen and military leaders prior to repeal? Spoiler alert: the correct answer is no.
(Oh, and to the Frum-types who couch their apologetics for groups like GOProud with pragmatic arguments about the “politics of addition” and such, just ask yourself: which organizations do you think represent more conservatives? Which organizations’ and their constituencies’ alienation do you think will have the more detrimental effect on the movement?)
On the other hand, Morrissey points out a not-insignificant distinction: while GOProud is attending, they aren’t an invited sponsor, meaning CPAC isn’t endorsing their platform, and neither are groups who participate in CPAC. And as he says, CPAC presents “the best possible forum for engagement and debate of the competing agendas of these groups.” If CPAC is going to indulge such wildly varying groups and ideologies, hopefully they’ve planned a series of candid, spirited debates and roundtables about these disputes. Ignoring unconservative views and agendas on the right weakens conservatism, but debating them can only strengthen it.
What Is Marriage?
Scholars Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson have a lengthy new paper on the question, to which NYU’s Kenji Yoshino responds here, proclaiming that the “best argument against gay marriage” has failed. I haven’t had time to sit down with the original piece, but I have read Yoshino’s response, as well as the trio’s counter-response. Judging from them, “What Is Marriage?” and its follow-ups seem like required reading, no matter where you stand on gay marriage. (Hat tip: American Power)
ALL Press Release: "Research Reveals Catholic Healthcare West Pays For Abortions; Refers for Sterilizations"
From American Life League:
MEDIA RELEASE
20 December 2010
Contact: Shaun Kenney
American Life League
skenney@all.org | 540.659.7900
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
20 December 2010
Contact: Shaun Kenney
American Life League
skenney@all.org | 540.659.7900
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Research Reveals Catholic Healthcare West
Pays For Abortions; Refers for Sterilizations
Pays For Abortions; Refers for Sterilizations
— Catholic Healthcare West contributed money towards healthcare system providing abortions to 12-year olds —
— SF Gate: Catholic Healthcare West leadership involved health care plan that performs abortions —
— Sterilizations performed inside at least 12 Catholic Healthcare West facilities —
— SF Gate: Catholic Healthcare West leadership involved health care plan that performs abortions —
— Sterilizations performed inside at least 12 Catholic Healthcare West facilities —
WASHINGTON, D.C. (20 December 2010) – American Life League has uncovered damaging new information regarding the anti-Catholic activities of San Francisco-based Catholic Healthcare West.
Specifically, the new information included in a prepared dossier released at 2pm Eastern today reveals the following highly concerning details:
- Catholic Healthcare West granted money to the San Francisco Health Plan, a health care program that provided funding for abortion to children as young as 12. Worse than this, the San Francisco Health Plan does not provide parental notification or consent for these services, meaning that one’s 12-year old daughter could have an abortion performed upon her through the plan without a mother or father’s knowledge or consent, and with the financial backing of a Catholic institution.
- Catholic Healthcare West CEO Lloyd Dean co-chaired the creation of the abortion-providing Healthy San Francisco Health Access Plan, a subsidiary of the San Francisco Health Plan. The list of services includes “family planning services” that — according to the San Francisco Gate in November 2009 — included coverage for abortions.
- 12 Catholic Healthcare West member hospitals/medical centers performed female sterilizations as far back as 2001 and 20 Catholic Healthcare West members currently refer to staff physicians for vasectomies.
The details of these and other alarming policies and positions of Catholic Healthcare West can be found at the following link:
On Friday, American Life League asked a few questions regarding Catholic Healthcare West. After careful investigation and documentation, these are the answers that staff uncovered:
- Have any CHW affiliated hospitals provided contraceptives, sterilizations, or other proscribed so-called reproductive health services? Yes. As of 2001, at least 12 CHW members performed tubal ligations and currently at least 20 members refer for vasectomies by staff physicians on their websites. In fact, not only does CHW member Woodland Health Care list “contraception: as one of its services, but the CHW’s 2008 Arizona Medical Plan and $250 deductible plan covers abortifacient oral contraceptives and diaphragms.
- Have any CHW hospitals provided contraceptives which can possibly interrupt the implantation of human beings in their embryonic state (abortifacients)? Though evidence for procedures actually being performed at Catholic Healthcare West facilities is inconclusive, Catholic Healthcare West does list a number of known abortifacient contraceptives in their health care plans preferred drug list.
- Has CHW, through its community grants program, provided funding to any organization that promotes activities or lifestyles that are opposed to Catholic teaching? Catholic Healthcare West has given to at least six grantees that actively promote abortion, birth control, and homosexual lifestyles.
- Has CHW given its support to any public policy or legislation which would provide funding for abortion? In 2006, Catholic Healthcare West CEO co-chaired the Universal Health Care Council for the creation of the healthy San Francisco Health Access Program, which covers elective abortions.
- Did CHW support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act despite the admonishment of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ not to support the bill on the grounds that it provided taxpayer funding for abortion? In 2009 and 2010, Catholic Healthcare West’s CEO gave full and unqualified support for the act before and after its passage.
- Most importantly, will CHW comply with Bishop Olmsted’s requests? Catholic Healthcare West has yet to comply with Bishop Olmsted’s request, even after a gracious extension of the Friday deadline.
American Life League and hundreds of thousands of Catholics concerned about what is being done in the name of a faith committed to the defense and protection of human beings in all stages are very eager to hear that Catholic Healthcare West is taking Bishop Olmsted’s requests for fidelity to heart.
Conservative Standards 