Chris Matthews to oppose Arlen Specter in 2010?

The question mark is because the original blog to report this has backed off a little. Matthews, MSNBC’s Hardball host would most likely serve to mobilize conservatives in PA for Specter. Specter, a moderate Republican, might face a conservative challenge in the primary but would likely prevail. He is very popular here.
And in other news, Al Franken is still a loser.

Will the Catholic Bishops shut down the hospitals?

Yesterday, Melinda Henneberger published an article on Slate that takes seriously the proposed response by the American Catholic in the event the Congress passes the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). This follows a similar piece by my friend and colleague, Paul Kengor on Crosswalk which provides background for the Bishops’ stance.
Henneberger and Kengor make the case that the Catholic vote helped push Obama over the top. Surely a Catholic vote that resembled the evangelical vote would have made an Obama presidency more unlikely. Kengor writes,

The bishops are also upset that Catholic politicians helped make this possible. A short list includes vice-president-elect Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, both pro-choice Catholics, and plenty of pro-life Catholic Democrats around the country, such as Senator Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA), who worked his tail off to deliver Pennsylvania’s crucial Electoral College votes to Obama. And there were groups like “Catholics for Obama,” men like Doug Kmiec and Pittsburgh Steelers’ owner Dan Rooney, and all those young people who voted in hordes for Obama, including the 60 percent of students at Catholic colleges who believe abortion should be legal, according to a new study commissioned by the Cardinal Newman Center.

Addressing the crux of this post, Kengor summarizes a recent statement of the American Bishops regarding Catholic hospitals post-FOCA:

Further, the bishops dread that FOCA would require all hospitals with obstetrics programs to do abortions, a natural expectation given that Obama has spoken of abortion as a “fundamental right,” a basic government service, and a vital component of America’s “safety net.” He calls groups like Planned Parenthood a “safety-net provider.” The bishops fear that this aspect of FOCA would mandate Catholic hospitals to provide abortions, which would force the hospitals to shut down rather than compromise their beliefs.

Henneberger believes it could happen, saying,

Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago warned of “devastating consequences” to the health care system, insisting Obama could force the closure of all Catholic hospitals in the country. That’s a third of all hospitals, providing care in many neighborhoods that are not exactly otherwise overprovided for. It couldn’t happen, could it?
You wouldn’t think so. Only, I am increasingly convinced that it could.

After correctly noting that Obama said during the campaign that the first thing he would do is sign the FOCA, Henneberg notes the potential moral meltdown for Catholic institutions:

Though it’s often referred to as a mere codification of Roe, FOCA, as currently drafted, actually goes well beyond that: According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn’t stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn’t be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute “material cooperation with an intrinsic evil.”

Henneberger concludes her article with hopes that Obama will not be as President who he has always been. As she points out, Obama’s first appointments do not signal the moderate stance which pro-life Catholic Obama voters (somehow) hoped for.

At the very moment when Obama and his party have won the trust of so many Catholics who favor at least some limits on abortion, I hope he does not prove them wrong. I hope he does not make a fool out of that nice Doug Kmiec, who led the pro-life charge on his behalf. I hope he does not spit on the rest of us—though I don’t take him for the spitting sort—on his way in the door. I hope that his appointment of Ellen Moran, formerly of EMILY’s List, as his communications director is followed by the appointment of some equally good Democrats who hold pro-life views. By supporting and signing the current version of FOCA, Obama would reignite the culture war he so deftly sidestepped throughout this campaign. This is a fight he just doesn’t need at a moment when there is no shortage of other crises to manage.

Obama’s choice is clear. The Catholics will be under the bus, not the pro-choice groups. FOCA may face some Democratic pro-life opposition and maybe a filibuster, but if (when) it gets out of Congress, Obama will sign it. Word is that he wants to avoid controversy in the first year, however, he built it in to his campaign by promising the troops that he would sign FOCA first thing. If he signals Dem leaders to keep it down, he risks aggravating his base. In contrast to the hopeful Ms. Henneberger, I think Obama will probably keep his word.
UPDATE: I came across this Reuters article not long after I published this post. Note the NARAL reps understated approach to FOCA.

Another looming battle will involve the Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA, which would further entrench a woman’s right to an abortion. It is seen as codifying Roe v. Wade.
It has never moved beyond the committee stage and is not seen as being at the top of the policy agenda next year.
But Obama has pledged to sign it into law, and the Democratic-led Congress might pass it.
Keenan said NARAL estimated that in the House of Representatives there were “185 fully pro-choice votes … 204 anti-choice votes and 46 mixed.” She added that the Senate was also seen to be still sharply divided on the issue.
“There’s a lot of work that needs to be done before we even get around to considering a FOCA vote,” Keenan said.
FOCA has been like a red flag to social conservatives who say it will sweep aside most restrictions on abortion rights, such as parental notification laws and the Partial-Birth Abortion Act that bans a certain late-term procedure.
Americans United for Life Action said that as of Friday, it had more than 230,000 signatures on an anti-FOCA petition on its website fightfoca.com — virtually all since the election.

ReutersHealth covers Frisch gay mortality study

I talked about it here and yesterday, ReutersHealth published an article about Frisch’s gay mortality study. With a sure to be provocative title, the article summarizes the main findings.
I have been surprised that only bloggers – and few of them – have picked up on this research. There is a little something here for everyone; there is some evidence of reduced longevity but not to the degree hoped for by the Camerons.

Mortality declines as same-sex marriage endures
Last Updated: 2008-11-24 13:33:59 -0400 (Reuters Health)
By Joene Hendry
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Mortality among same-sex married men and women in Denmark is higher than that of the general population within the first 3 years of marriage, but then declines to more closely resemble mortality the general Danish population, researchers report.
Nevertheless, these findings sharply contradict what Frisch’s group describes as “flawed claims” that people in same-sex marriages live an average of 20 years shorter than heterosexually married people.

The last sentence, of course, refers to the Camerons.

Dutch government funds sexual identity ministry

This news report from the Netherlands Information Services, an English language Dutch new service, is intriguing.

Govt Subsidises ‘Homosexuality Healers’
THE HAGUE, 22/11/08 – Emancipation Minister Ronald Plasterk subsidises two Christian organisations that see homosexuality as a curable complaint.
Plasterk recently announced he would give subsidies to Christian gay organisations with the goal of making homosexuality discussible in these circles. But according to De Pers newspaper, these organisations work with therapists that are supposed to ‘cure’ homosexuals of their proclivity. They also only accept homosexuality when it is not actually practised.
Refo Anders is receiving 84,000 euros. “Homosexual feelings, okay. But we reject practising,” confirmed chairman Johan Quist in De Pers. Dealing with homosexual feelings means either celibate living or becoming heterosexual, is also the view of Johan van de Sluis, board member of the Onze Weg (Our Way) foundation, which is receiving 50,000 euros.
Gay interests organisation COC chairman Wouter Neerings is astonished. “Minister Plasterk is normally a man of sound judgement. It looks like a political compromise with ChristenUnie.”
In a reaction, Plasterk said: “These organisations have access to circles where there would otherwise be no homo-emancipation at all. Of course I do not support the aims completely, but they have taken important hurdles. For example, the recognition that there are homos in Christian circles.”

Plasterk is an acclaimed molecular biologist, writer and of late politician, who serves as the Minister of Education, Culture and Science in the Netherlands. As such, he is responsible for “emancipation” or setting policies supportive of equal rights for women and gays. He rejects Christianity, yet apparently believes there is value in making “homosexuality discussible in these circles.”
I have some question about the characterization of the recipients as “homosexuality healers.” Refo Anders, one of the organizations receiving the money, has expressed reservations regarding change therapy. I cannot vouch for Google translation but here is a link to a page where it appears that Anders believes his group has been mischaracterized by the Dutch press. An excerpt:

The Press newspaper in an article called Refo Anders as a gay “healer”
Despite that Refo Anders in his vision document wrote that they skeptical about change therapy The Press considers it better to know and places it among the gay Refo Otherwise healers.
Otherwise Refo Foundation regrets this “low to the ground” way of journalism companies, particularly since the journalist (Koen Verhelst) a nuanced story that he has heard total passes even after he was recalled on factual inaccuracies in his story, even the inappropriate use of the name of Refo Otherwise urged not to him by corrections that after 37 minutes of us got on his concept press release (which he himself for a few days needed to write).

As I read through the materials, the approach sounds more like Wendy Gritter’s New Directions, than a change ministry.
UPDATE: Johan Quist, of Refo Anders wrote to explain a little further. Although his English is much better than my Dutch, it may take a couple of reads to catch the meaning.

We do not like to change the human with therapy, but otherwise we believe that God has the power to change people, it’s a work inside the heart of a human from God himself. Also its really important that people find the way back to the warm relation with God and from this warm relation God will show him the way to live; some people have to live his total life with homo-feelings And other people God will change, it’s the free way of God !

This is not a homosexuality healing or reparative therapy organization. Rather, this is a Christian ministry with a reformed theology which supports non-gay-affirming people who strive to live by their traditional reformed faith. I like this approach and think it has much to recommend it over the reparative based ministry often practiced in the U.S.