Fact-Deficiency of Zweifel

Not too surprising for an ex-editor of the CapSlimes.

Ninety years ago, after the end of World War I, nearly all of America's Catholic bishops joined together to push a program of "social reconstruction," their vision of how America's institutions could be overhauled to better serve the citizenry, particularly the needy.

That part is true.

The bishops lobbied hard on behalf of their proposals and many were eventually enacted into law, especially as part of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. The health insurance proposal, although it once was in the mix as part of Roosevelt's Social Security plan, never did make it, as we know all too well today

That's true too. Could it be that there is a REASON the health plan 'didn't make it'? Maybe, for example, that Catholics operated 25%++ of the hospitals during that era and FDR was anti-Catholic (which he most assuredly was.)??

Instead of helping push a plan aimed at covering the uninsured and the poor in our midst, these days we see bishops like the Madison Diocese's Robert Morlino squandering their time on reactionary silliness like ordering Catholic schools not to show the president's back-to-school address, as if the president of the United States can't be trusted with kids.

Well, Obama had no problem ensuring the death of tens-of-thousands of pre-born children, and no qualms about allowing the death of BORN children. No, Z., he CANNOT 'be trusted with kids.'

The reason the bishops won't get behind health care like their predecessors did back in 1919 is, of course, their modern-day fixation on abortion. They'd rather that nearly 50 million Americans, mostly the working poor, continue without health coverage and with the heartbreaks that result than take a slim chance that a health care overhaul might possibly allow an abortion to a rape victim or an imperiled mother-to-be.

(Wherein Z attempts to stuff more half-truths, lies, and innuendos into one graf than even Pravda!) But let's start here: neither Wilson nor FDR (nor anyone following through JFK) would have thought of murdering babies as a licit Federal enterprise, much less tax-supported.

Z resorts to quoting Ms. Kissling (properly spelled Quissling): "All agree to support the 'status quo' and to not use health care to advance their abortion agendas; and they agree to disagree about what the status quo is and move on. Not the bishops; they are the only religious group that is holding support for health care reform hostage to a complete ban on any form of federal funds being spent on abortion coverage."

Gee. Kissling lies and Z knows it (or he'd substantiate her remarks). Funny thing. Those Bishops just don't think Kissling tells the truth (she doesn't) and they say out loud that forcing citizens to subsidize abortions is--------immoral!

In Kansas City the archbishop and the bishop have gone so far as joining those who oppose a public option for health coverage, saying that health reforms should emphasize "personal responsibility for health care decisions, and for the cost of treatment, rather than reliance on government or society." That's a smoke-screen position, of course, because it's the public option they fear might allow using government funds for an emergency abortion.

That's because strictly speaking, health care is NOT the obligation of the State. Never has been. Never will be. In limited circumstances, for good reason, the State has assumbed the responsibility--but it is NOT an 'obligation.'

The nation's Catholic bishops have come a long way since 1919, when they sided with those who pushed hard to give a helping hand to America's workers, the poor and the elderly. Unfortunately, it has often been the wrong way.

In your opinion, Davey. But facts matter; it would be kinda nice if you'd use a few now and then.

HT: FoxPolitics