I was listening to the radio the other day, and the host was talking about Democrat Representative Bart Stupak (D, MI-01)’s amendment to President Obama’s healthcare "reform" plan, which if accepted in the final version, would expressly disallow the federal government’s insurance plan to subsidize abortions, except in morally acceptable cases .

The host, Janet Parshall , commented that a number of American church organizations—under the auspices of the interfaith Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice—had sent a letter to the US Senate and were protesting in front of the Senate , trying to convince legislators to "stop Stupak."  One of the churches involved in this effort to subsidize abortions is the Presbyterian Church USA.  The denomination that I attend the most regularly.  The one that I grew up in.

Let me back up.  Presbyterianism isn’t as complex as some people think, and I had assumed that—politically and theologically—it was a fairly moderate church.  As I explain to people who aren’t familiar with what Presbyterians do, I like to say "you know high school civics class?  Voting, separate branches of government, committees and councils, federalism—I mean, hell, the congregation takes votes when the pastor wants to deviate from the church bulletin.  It’s Sunday morning civics class.

Anyway, I e-mailed the Presbyterian Church’s analogue of the White House, the General Assembly, asking to talk to someone regarding the Church’s participation in the RCRC.  Instead, I got a canned response from Susan Lindsey, Senior Communications Associate for the General Assembly Mission Council.

In this response, among other half-truths and prevarications, Lindsey wrote that:

The abortion amendments introduced a greater degree of restriction, which would in many cases prevent women from using their own money to purchase insurance that includes abortion coverage.

No, Stupak-Pitts did not "prevent women from using their own money to purchase insurance that includes abortion coverage."  It prevented the government from subsidizing abortions.

There’s a oh-so-slight difference between the two, although I’m sure that the difference evaded this policy hack’s Cluedar.  Remind me to close the <sarcasm> tags when I’m done, mkay?

Lindsey went on to state that the PCUSA was opposed to late-term abortions, which is wonderful.  However, she went on to step in it by contradicting her own premise by saying that the PCUSA:

…acknowledges the diversity of opinion within the church on the subject of abortion. It commits the church to work for a decrease in the number of abortions, by encouraging alternatives, and by viewing abortion as an option of last resort. However, the policy is very clear on the topic of using the law of the government to advance our position on this difficult subject.

THEN WHY THE HECK ARE YOU FIGHTING FOR GOVERNMENT-FUNDED ABORTIONS IN THE FIRST PLACE, YA MOOK!?

A-hem.

On a more secular note, she noted that "The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) believes that any reform plan should be guided by the values of universal accessibility, equity and responsible financing."

Heh heh.  I replied to her, stating that:

"official estimates for the costs of the Democratic Party’s health-care reform plan range from $848,000,000,000 to over $1,000,000,000,000; that the nation is current running a deficit (spending more money than it takes in) of $1,420,000,000,000; and that the federal government is projected to run a deficit in the area of $9,200,000,000,000 in the next 10 years (USA Today, 10/16/2009 )

and asked her:

In light of these secular, economic facts, do you believe that the Democratic Party’s health-care reform plan is sufficiently guided by values in line with the Church’s guideline of "responsible financing"?  If so, please explain the church’s reasoning.

I was given the brush-off; Lindsey replied curtly, "We have no further comment beyond the statement."

In other words, she had no good answer.

I’m very disappointed in my church, and I feel a bit betrayed, to be honest. There are no theological grounds for the Religious Left to stand on, and (at the national level) my church isn’t representing my views, my family’s views, and even my local church congregation’s views.

That’s utter crap.