Health-care reform & abortion: reax to Obama’s speech
First up, the National Right to Life Committee:
“The claim that a federal agency would be spending private funds on abortion, not federal funds, is absurd on its face, a political hoax,” [NRLC legislative director Douglas] Johnson said.
Next, Bill Donohue:
President Obama is playing a shell game. He defended the public option plan last night, and under that plan, the person in charge of deciding whether abortion coverage will be mandated is his Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius. This is the same woman who befriended George Tiller, the infamous abortionist who specialized in killing babies 80-percent born. Is there anyone who doubts what her decision will be?… Being wrong is one thing. Being deceitful is quite another.
Finally, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Calling it an important contribution to a crucial national debate, officials speaking on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops welcomed President Obama’s September 9 address on health care reform, particularly his statements regarding abortion and the uninsured.
“We agree that ‘no one should go broke because they get sick,’” said Kathy Saile, Director of Domestic Social Development at the USCCB. “That’s why the U.S. Bishops have worked for decades for decent health care for all. The Catholic Church provides health care for millions, purchases health care, picks up the pieces of a failing health system, and has a long tradition of teaching on ethics in health care. Health care reform that respects the life and dignity of all is a moral imperative and urgent national priority. We welcome the President’s speech as an important contribution to this essential national debate and task.”
“We especially welcome the President’s commitment to exclude federal funding of abortion, and to maintain existing federal laws protecting conscience rights in health care,” said Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director of Pro-Life Activities at the USCCB. “We believe that incorporating essential and longstanding federal laws on these issues into any new proposal will strengthen support for health care reform. We will work with Congress and the Administration to ensure that these protections are clearly reflected in new legislation, so no one is required to pay for or take part in abortion as a result of health care reform.”
“We agree with the President that there are details that need to be ironed out,” said Saile. “And with his address last night, we see the opportunity to work towards a truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity, access for all with a special concern for the poor, and inclusion of legal immigrants. We also see the possibility of meeting the bishops’ goal to pursue the common good and preserve pluralism, including freedom of conscience and a variety of options, and restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers.”
It seems that Wild Bill Donahue is more “R.C.” than the USCCB, but is it Roman Catholic or Republican Catholic?
Excerpt – Letter from Cardinal Rigali to representatives dated 8/11/09
1. The legislation delegates to the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to
make unlimited abortion a mandated benefit in the “public health insurance plan” the
government will manage nationwide. This would be a radical change: Federal law has long excluded most abortions from federal employees’ health benefits packages, and no federal health program mandates coverage of elective abortions.
2. Because some federal funds are authorized and appropriated by this legislation without
passing through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, they are not covered by the Hyde
amendment and other federal provisions that have long prevented federal funding of abortion and of health benefits packages that include abortion. The committee rejected an amendment to extend this longstanding policy to the use of federal subsidies for health care premiums under this Act. Instead the committee created a legal fiction, a paper separation between federal funding and abortion: Federal funds will subsidize the public plan, as well as private health plans that include abortion on demand; but anyone who purchases these plans is required to pay a premium out of his or her own pocket (specified in the Act to be at least $1.00 a month) to cover all abortions beyond those eligible for federal funds under the current Hyde amendment. Thus some will claim that federal taxpayer funds do not support abortion under the Act.
But this is an illusion. Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortions. Furthermore, those constrained by economic necessity or other factors to purchase the “public plan” will be forced by the federal government to pay directly and specifically for abortion coverage. This is the opposite of the policy in every other federal health program. Government will force low-income Americans to subsidize abortions for others (and abortion coverage for themselves) even if they find abortion morally abhorrent.
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/CardRigaliHealthCareReformLetter-08-11-09.pdf
——————————-
President Barack Obama
40 Minutes for Health Reform on BlogTalkRadio
An Address to members of the ‘40 Days for Health Reform’ Coalition
August 19, 2009
Excerpt:
… I know there’s been a lot of misinformation in this debate. And there are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness. But I want everyone to know what health-insurance reform is all about.
… You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true.
These are all fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation. …
http://blog.blogtalkradio.com/government/president-obama-enlists-faithful-healthcare-reform-i-spread-facts-speak-truth/
Eugene,
I think you are seeing the USCCB statement as being more concillialtory than it really is. My reading is that they are saying – OK, now, follow through.
“We believe that incorporating essential and longstanding federal laws on these issues into any new proposal will strengthen support for health care reform. We will work with Congress and the Administration to ensure that these protections are clearly reflected in new legislation, so no one is required to pay for or take part in abortion as a result of health care reform.”
In other words – make the exclusion specific in a new proposal. Their position hasn’t changed. The only difference with Donahue is that he is addressing the president’s claim that the system he supports is already acceptable on the abortion issue while the USCCB is treating his declaration as an offer to change his position.
I wish President Obama had a health care reform plan he was trying to push thorugh Congress, but he does not. Instead he is simply commenting on what he thinks is in the various Congressional proposals, and what he wants to see in them.
In spite of that however, the President gave the sort of good presentation for which he is so well known. He deserves credit for trying to find and present common ground and trying to calm peoples’ fear.
That having been said, it should not come as news anyone that politicians’ words at any given time really mean little and that instead, what matters is the actual language that ends up in a particular bill that is actually passed into law.
That is not controversial or complex. Politicians have been blathering away for centuries about this or that, and it all comes to naught unless a given politicians actually puts what he or she is saying into writing, and that verbiage ends up in proposed legislation, and that legislation actually is signed into law.
Again, none of that is controversial or complicated. Keeping it in mind then, I do not understand why neither our President nor our Congress folks seem willing to write – i.e., put into written form – language into the proposed legislation that specifies that our federal government will not be paying for abortions.
It is not difficult, in fact it is straightforward.
The same sort of language should be inserted so as to prevent the Federal government from paying for so-called “assisted suicide” or “mercy killing”, more broadly known as euthanasia.
Finally, it also needs to be made clear that any national medical plan would necessarily include all residents, not just all citizens.
My understanding is that Cardinal Rigali had it wrong in his statement excerpted above. I believe the reform legislation with the Capps amendment (which Rigali is criticizing) explicitly creates two public option plans, one that covers abortion and one that doesn’t. So folks who opt for the public option but do not want abortion coverage, will NOT have their funds mixed with those that do, there will be two separate plans. Also, I find it curious that the Cardinal writes this, suggesting that private premium $$ set aside is still fungible with all other monies suggests to me an argument against government funding of Catholic charities, education through student grants, loans, workstudy and more. If it is all fungible, then the government is funding the Catholic church.
Also, a curious thing that us pro-lifers ignore: the grave scandal of private health insurance plans and Catholic funding of abortion through these plans. 80% of these plans cover abortion. That suggests that around 80% of Catholics that have private health insurance plans are funding abortion through their premiums. Wow. At least the public option plan, as seen right now with the Capps amendment plan, does separate monies so that pro-life participants (nor the nation for that matter) aren’t paying for abortions.
I’m not, I have government health insurance.
I was and remain very favorably impressed by President Obama’s speech last evening.
Let me now say something about the matter of funds for abortion.
I too would like more assurance about precluding funding for abortions. However, here are a couple of considerations that I think deserve consideration.
1. Though I’m no lawyer or Constitutional expert, I take it that just how the legislation is ultimately worded will have to pass constitutional muster concerning equal protection considerations. Why should I not trust the President’s word that he will do all that he can to preclude such funding? I cannot see how it would be in his own interest, much less the nation’s interest, for him to say what he did last night and then fail to follow through. To presume that he is trying to hoodwink us about this strikes me as just plain cynical. Sure, “trust but verify.” But that phrase does include the word ‘trust.’
2. Let us not forget that all too often the supposedly perfect is indeed the enemy of the good. If one cannot constitutionally forestall having some funding available for abortions, does that mean no health care reform until a constitutional amendment to that effect is ratified? For one to adopt this kind of position is, in my view, to wander into the land of the absurd.
“I wish President Obama had a health care reform plan he was trying to push thorugh Congress,”
We elect Congress to make the laws. The President sets the vision and strategy of his administration.
Is it unreasonable to expect the House and Senate to act as adults and actually rise to the occasion?
I’m willing to bet that there are more citizens who would like to see federal funding of abortion than those opposed.
Let Rigali et al get out of their socialized medical plans (i.e., paid for by the pew potatoes at no cost to the clergy) and find something on their own. Maybe then they’ll stop being Republicans and become Christians. I know that’s a lot to ask, especially of the Catholic hierarchy, but the Lord moves in mysterious ways, so there remains hope albeit faint.
Grant:
Thanks for posting these responses. Have you been able to find reactions from the more centrist and even progressive arenas of Catholicism? It might help fill out the picture, and it could lead to some interesting conversation. Something other than stating-again-how misguided Bill Donahue and his ilk are. The USCCB statement is heartening. What about other commentators?
Per Jimmy; “We elect Congress to make the laws. The President sets the vision and strategy of his administration.”
Surely you do not mean that a president should Not propose programs to Congress?
I am simply referring to the fact that there are two approaches a president might take regarding Congress. If I recall correctly from Civics class, one approach is called “conservative” and the other is called “liberal”. Note this is a different application of the two terms; it does not refer to general politics, but to the specific approach a president takes with Congress.
A president who proposes no legislation and who prefers to simply sign or veto the legislation present him by Congress is said to have a conservative approach to Congress. Old Calvin Coolidge is an example of this. He thought of the presidency more limited than other men did, and basically was an administrator. This approach was more common in the 1800′s, and is still allowable today.
A president who takes a more active role and submits legislation and works to guide it through Congress is said to have a liberal approach to Congress. Presidents like FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Bush are examples of men who preferred this approach. These men were all more activist than old Silent Cal was.
Ironically, it seems Obama took a ‘conservative’ approach instead of a more activist, liberal approach. Instead of working with his own team to develop his own legislation and present to Congress, President Obama decided to trust Congress with the whole thing. I think he now realizes this was a mistake.
I assumed Obama was refraining from presenting a plan ready-made for the Dems in Congress to adopt in order to avoid the appearance that it was a whim of his, and not a policy of the party in general. Of course, the GOP was going to call it “Obamacare” anyway: the “he’s a fascist shoving this down our unwilling throats!” narrative of oppression doesn’t depend on facts.
Ken: are these enough proposals for you?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/02/27/highlights_of_obamas_proposals?mode=PF
Regarding healthcare: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/bios/view.bg?articleid=1063110
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Health Care: Obama’s health care platform focuses on a new national health plan that covers the nation’s uninsured. The plan would guarantee eligibility, provide coverage similar to the federal employee health insurance program, offer “affordable” premiums, co-pays and deductibles; and allow enrollees to keep their coverage when they change jobs. He would introduce a requirement for all children to have health insurance and pledges to expand eligibility for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Businesses that do not provide insurance to their employees would be assessed a fee based on a percentage of their payroll. His plan would allow states to continue developing their own reform plans. He would also make employer health plans eligible for reimbursement of catastrophic costs provided the savings would be used to offset employee premiums. Obama also pledges to support disease prevention programs, promote quality and cost transparency and reform medical malpractice insurance.
Lest we forget, Congress crucified the Clinton healthcare proposal(s) because they were presented with a highly developed proposal. Their overblown egos (not to be confused with intelligence) were bent out of shape, so they were far from receptive from what was being proposed, irrespective to what the proposals were. Oh, they give faux faint praise (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/23/us/clinton-s-health-plan-reaction-congress-praises-president-s-plan-but-wary-taxes.html) but they still bowed to their healthcare funders and shot the plan down.
Obama has been trying (misguidedly, to my way of thinking) to get these kiddies to act like adults and build on his campaign vision and ideas …. Proposals, they. Well, we see what we have gotten: death panels, mandatory abortion, “keep your hands off of my medicare,” socialized medicine, ad nauseum. And that hasn’t all come from Fixed News, either.
Grassley and Baucus have done little to none to advance ANY cause toward healthcare improvement.
*8th largest hospital care system Catholic Health Care West supports Obama.. [But what do they know says the cons. i.e Wild Bill Donahue].
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS19763+10-Sep-2009+BW20090910
Bernard — there is absolutely no constitutional obligation, zero, for the federal government to include abortion funding. The Supreme Court has held so in cases that I already provided to you.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/
But Kathleen Sebelius works for the president–she’s part of the executive branch. It’s not her personal decision whether to cover them or not. She reports to the president.
That the president’s statements about abortion and his plans for health care reform are misleading is evident by simply looking at who supports the bill – Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, Rep Delaura, etc. Every notable group or politician that has been pushing for the last two decades public funding for abortion supports the current House bill.
Additionally, every version of the public option whether it’s one ore two plans calls for partial public funding. The claim that no taxpayer money will go for abortions is based on the ridiculous idea that these monies will somehow be segregated from premium monies. Can anyone say Social Security Lock Box?
Studebaker, I do appreciate the information you provided earlier. Let me now just ask the following question> If the health care bill that emerges now provides some NEW entitlements to people, but explicitly excluded funding for any abortions, would that bill be vulnerable to constitutional challenge? I would appreciate your answer.
Peter Steinfel”s column in today’s (Saturday”s) NY Times is extremely pertinent to the health care reform effort and the issue of abortion. The goal of “abortion neutrality” strikes me as quite acceptable, especially if interpreted practically rather than mathematically. This column answers, at least so far as I can see, the question I posed to Studebaker yesterday.