Read between the Lies: Catholics United tries to spin the truth

Deal Hudson is good at picking the right fights, and in this case, he's found an opponent who appears to enjoy shooting himself in the foot, while digging himself a hole, after he's realized he's behind.

Deal has been talking to US News and World Report blogger Dan Gilgoff, making the simple point that Catholics United is a fake Catholic organization:

"The same fake Catholic groups that helped President Barack Obama get elected," Hudson writes on his InsideCatholic website , "have rallied to the cause of the health-care bill, abortion funding and all."

Chris Korzen, the executive director of one of these fake Catholic organizations - Catholics United - wasn't smart enough to stay quiet and lay low. He decided to respond.

This leaves be with the undesirable - but I think necessary - task of refuting what Korzen wrote, line by tedious line. Here we go (when I write Korzen in bold, that means I'm issuing a direct challenge to him):

Abortion is legal in the United States, and there's not much either Catholics United or Deal Hudson can do to change that.

Way to start with an attitude of defeat. Does Korzen think the position of a Catholic organization on the question of abortion should be "we've lost"?

What we can do is find ways to unite Americans around common ground approaches to abortion, something Hudson and company have consistently opposed doing.

Korzen: name one example of Deal "and company" doing so. What Deal (and I, and many others, including the US bishops), have repeatedly done, is reject common ground that is actually pro-abortion. Pushing contraception to schoolkids? That's not common ground. Funding Planned Parenthood? That's not common ground. Korzen: name one common ground initiative that you support. Be specific. We'll talk.

Ensuring that pregnant women and children have insurance coverage should be a no-brainer for Catholics.

Not if these token provisions are wrapped in 1,000+ pages of government bureaucracy, no conscience clause exemptions, an abortion mandate, significant fears of rationing (especially of the elderly and vulnerable), fiscal irresponsibility, and coercion of religious medical providers and individuals. That should be the no-brainer here, Chris. If these issues don't strike Korzen as causing concern, then he's coming at this from a partisan perspective - not a Catholic one. And Korzen can quote me on that.

In short, I wouldn't call us pro-abortion rights or anti-abortion rights. We're pro-common ground.

So Korzen would not call Catholics United "anti-abortion rights." So Korzen: does he support the "anti-abortion" measure of making partial-birth abortions illegal? Korzen: does he support parental notification laws? Korzen: does he not support the funding of crisis pregnancy centers that promote adoptions? After all, all of these can be considered "anti-abortion rights" initiatives. Furthermore, Korzen: what defines, for Catholics United, what is acceptable common ground? Is it the teachings of the Church about the truth and dignity of the human person, or is it political expediency? I'm waiting.

You'll note that we supported the House bill after the Stupak language was passed, much to the consternation of actual pro-abortion rights groups. . . .

So Korzen's claim to fame is that his organization managed to do something that the "pro-abortion" groups weren't on board with? That's an extremely strange definition of success. Such a low bar. And I thought Korzen said he wouldn't label Catholics United as a "pro-abortion rights group." Oh well.

But let's take this a second step - why did Korzen support the House after Stupak amendment passed? Was it because the bill was now "pro-life"? Then obviously he wouldn't support the Senate bill if it did not include the same pro-life language? Korzen: is my analysis accurate? If so, I'm glad we cleared that up. But if Korzen actually supported the bill because he is in lock-step with Democrat goals, then he is actually no different than the majority of pro-abortion groups, so his argument is false and deceitful.

I'm pretty sure Deal wasn't with us in supporting final passage of the [House] health care bill. He just hates the idea of health care reform, and abortion provides an all-too-convenient excuse.

As I prepare to write this next sentence, the number of ways to throw these words back at you leave me confused where to begin. How can Korzen say a pro-life advocate "hates the idea of health care reform"? I think it's pretty clear pro-lifers hate this type of health care reform, the kind which actually hurts all the good things health care reform is supposed to help. And by "good things" I mean people, Chris, real human beings, unborn, elderly - all Americans effected by this legislation.

In my short experience in politics, one of my saddest lessons has been that the men who practice deception attack others using the same arguments they know ought to be used against them. Korzen makes a habit of attacking those who disagree with him as being "blindly partisan". I have read his lies for a long time now - this is his only "argument." If you disagree with him, it is because you aren't a Democrat - that is behind every one of his attempts to distract and confuse.

At times I have disagreed with Republican issues and elected officials. I recently strongly opposed their congressional candidate in NY-23. Readers will recall I came out vocally against John McCain's position on Embryonic Stem Cell Research during the presidential campaign. There are many other examples. But can Korzen name one example where Catholics United, as an organization, vocally disagreed with a Democrat policy, issue, or candidate, because these opposed Catholic teaching?

In the final analysis, I think (to use Korzen's words) that he actually just hates the idea of being wrong, and lies provide an all-too-convenient way out.

If I'm wrong, Mr. Korzen can start by responding. If the truth is on his side, it will come to his defense.

(I would also say, publicly, that I am happy to debate Mr. Korzen in public, in person. I am open to discussing the terms of the debate, and my contact information is readily available on the sidebar.)