One such group that lately has been the subject of much ire in the media is the Catholic Church, most specifically the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, or USCCB, the Church’s governing body in the United States. These “meddling” bishops, as they’ve been called, have inserted themselves smack-dab in the middle of the health care reform debate, and people — from civilians to lawmakers, Republicans to Democrats — are pissed about it.

Maybe you’ve heard the story, but if not, I’ll recap. A few weeks ago, the U.S. House of Representatives was still frantically trying to pass its version of the health care bill. At the eleventh hour, an amendment was introduced by the pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak, D-Mich. The “Stupak Amendment,” as it’s called, prohibits any federally subsidized health insurance plan from covering abortions. The bishops worked closely with Stupak (a Catholic) and other lawmakers to ensure the language of the amendment was sound and that it was included in the final version of the health care bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., knew the only way to pass the bill was to allow representatives to vote on the Stupak Amendment. By doing so, Pelosi (also a Catholic) was able to get another 41 votes on the health care bill, mostly from pro-life Democrats. On the evening of Nov. 7, the health care bill passed by the narrow margin of 220 to 215. Essentially, the health care bill passing in the House came as a direct result of the Stupak Amendments’s inclusion.

But why did the Catholic Church have so much influence in the matter? Why not a wealthy pro-life lobbying group, or some right-wing evangelicals? Surely there are plenty of political and religious groups that oppose abortion.

There certainly are, but it’s important to note that the Catholic Church is one of the precious few groups that remain vehemently pro-life, while also strongly supporting health care reform. In fact, bishops have been pushing for health care reform for decades, ever since Pope John XXIII’s 1963 encyclical, “Pacem in Terris,” which classified health care as a fundamental human right.

Naturally though, there are those who have accused the Church of going too far, even saying its tax-exempt status should be removed if it continues to engage so conspicuously in the public sphere. The pro-choice contingent obviously is beside themselves as well. Laurie Rubiner, vice president of public policy for Planned Parenthood, said when speaking of the Catholic Church, that she was surprised “an entity that purports to be a supporter of health care reform and an advocate for the poor and low-income women would take such a hard line and refuse to compromise.”

Never mind the fact that all of the Church’s services — support for health care reform, helping the poor, etc. — all spring from core convictions and principles that the Church can never change. For Catholics, these principles extend to protecting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.

So when the bishops say things such as “abortion is not health care” and “no one should be deliberately killed,” they are speaking out of firm convictions, not stubbornness. How can statements such as these — and the principles behind them — possibly be compromised? And how can we really expect those who hold such profoundly important moral convictions to just stand idly by and not engage in public policy?

The Church’s stance on abortion and health care is one crafted out of principles, not politics. It’s myopic to expect religious leaders to compromise their principles for the sake of social or policy changes. Politicians do that plenty well as it is.

It’s unclear how the Stupak Amendment will fare in the Senate, but one thing is clear; The bishops aren’t going away or shutting up any time soon. By refusing to check their moral convictions at the gate of the public square, Catholic bishops helped the House get a health care bill.

In the end, the House traded public funding for abortion in exchange for the most authentic and necessary health care reform that our nation has seen in decades.

That, to me, seems like a very acceptable compromise.

Dan Faas is the State News opinion writer. Reach him at faasdani@msu.edu.