Catholic Health Association Prez: ‘The Time Is Now for Health Reform.’
From Sr. Carol Keehan, DC:
The insurance reforms will make the lives of millions more secure, and their coverage more affordable. The reforms will eventually make affordable health insurance available to 31 million of the 47 million Americans currently without coverage.
CHA has a major concern on life issues. We said there could not be any federal funding for abortions and there had to be strong funding for maternity care, especially for vulnerable women. The bill now being considered allows people buying insurance through an exchange to use federal dollars in the form of tax credits and their own dollars to buy a policy that covers their health care. If they choose a policy with abortion coverage, then they must write a separate personal check for the cost of that coverage.
There is a requirement that the insurance companies be audited annually to assure that the payment for abortion coverage fully covers the administrative and clinical costs, that the payment is held in a separate account from other premiums, and that there are no federal dollars used.
In addition, there is a wonderful provision in the bill that provides $250 million over 10 years to pay for counseling, education, job training and housing for vulnerable women who are pregnant or parenting. Another provision provides a substantial increase in the adoption tax credit and funding for adoption assistance programs.
Read the rest right here.
on March 13th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
The Catholic Health Association is making a mistake to settle for the language in the Senate Health Reform bill. It will not be reconciled at some future date making it more palatable for those of us who are strongly opposed to Federal funding for abortions. Lending the support of any organization that includes Catholic in its name offers up on the altar of expediency our strongly held belief that abortion is murder. The Church stands firm on the issue of abortion but it appears associations calling themselves Catholic feel free to interpret Church doctrine on an “o.k. until I disagree basis.” I’m truly sad at the state of our Church. We either are or are not Catholic. If we profess we are then the Church stand on this issue is clear and it should be upheld in our actions.
on March 14th, 2010 at 8:29 am
The articles linked below make mincemeat out of the CHA’s rationalization of its preference for the Senate health care reform bill, and similarly debunk David Gibson’s rationalization in Politics Daily (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/11/the-senate-bill-funds-abortions-nope-and-its-more-pro-life-th/ ), especially Gibson’s incredibly naïve claim that it is “unlikely” federal funds will go to Planned Parenthood under the guise of health care. (Of course, when it happens, ostensible opponents of unrestricted and government funded abortion will say, “Hey, we only said funding of PP was ‘unlikely’. We did not say it was a certainty that PP would not get funding. Darn, the “unlikely” happened. Oh well, too bad, let’s move on.”)
What’s Wrong With The Senate Health Care Bill On Abortion?
USCCB 3/1210
http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/USCCBrebuttalToJostOnHR3590.pdf
USCCB Fact sheet 3/4/10
http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/USCCBfactsheetOnSenateBill.pdf
NRLC Memorandum 2/24/10
http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCMemoCommHealth.html
on March 14th, 2010 at 9:24 am
Catholics United also says that the Senate bill does not fund abortion and it urges the bishops support the bill. http://www.catholics-united.org/
on March 14th, 2010 at 10:41 am
As an outsider looking in the single issue of abortion is killing a bill which has an opportunity to save the lived lives of possibly as many as are killed by abortion. It is something we don’t and can’t know.
Many are so fixed on the abortion issue and the issue of state payment that they are prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This kind of one issue politics is destroying a once great nation. Get on with providing health care for the uninsured and then work slowly on decreasing the incidence of abortion using other political means as is already happening.
In this outsiders view this is overkill!
on March 14th, 2010 at 10:45 am
“a bill which has an opportunity to save the lived lives of possibly as many as are killed by abortion”
The nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, states the number of abortions per year in the United States is more than 1,200,000.
And you think ObamaCare is going to “save” more lives than that? Every single year?
on March 14th, 2010 at 11:10 am
And you think ObamaCare is going to “save” more lives than that? Every single year?
Mike,
I am not sure if John Borst meant this or not, but for those who are “pro-life,” It seems to me one way to look at the bill is to determine how many total lives it saves. In order to be successful from a “pro-life” (rather than just an anti-abortion) perspective, it would not have to save 1.2 million lives a year. Rather, more lives would have to be saved under the bill than without the bill. So even if the abortion rate went up slightly because of the bill, the lives saved from extending insurance to 30 million people could more than balance that out. For those concerned solely with the unborn, that would be unacceptable. For those who believe that people still have a right to life after they are born, it very well might be taken to justify the bill.
This was a mistake widely made during the presidential campaign. “Pro-lifers” were claiming that in order for Obama to be acceptable, he would have to find some way of saving 1.2 million lives a year to balance out abortion. But that assumed John McCain would somehow bring an abrupt and complete end to abortion in the United States were he elected.
on March 14th, 2010 at 11:19 am
By the way, I think the only way to measure the House and Senate prohibitions on abortion spending would be to divide the United States into equal thirds and implement the House bill in one third of the country, the Senate bill in another third, and maintain the status quo in the remaining third. Then take about ten years and compare data from the three areas. And even that probably wouldn’t settle the question. There are some matters — for example, the impact of raising the minimum wage — that should be empirically testable, and yet liberals and conservatives cannot come to a meeting of the minds about them no matter how many studies are done.
on March 14th, 2010 at 11:51 am
Bishop of Arlington: The Time is Now for Prayer and Fasting
Tomorrow, Monday, March 15, has been declared a day of prayer and fasting for “protecting the life, dignity, health and conscience rights of every human person in any legislation that Congress considers.”
As the bishops, through the USCCB, note, “On December 24, the U.S. Senate rejected this policy and passed health care reform that requires federal funds to help subsidize and promote health plans that cover elective abortions. All purchasers of such plans will be required to pay for other people’s abortions through a separate payment solely to pay for abortion. And the affordability credits for very low income families purchasing private plans in a Health Insurance Exchange are inadequate and would leave families financially vulnerable.
“Outside the abortion context, neither bill has adequate conscience protection for health care providers, plans or employers.”
on March 14th, 2010 at 11:54 am
As for abortion, like I said way back in November when it was passed, passage of the Stupak Amendment was always a scam, that the language was certain to be taken out, and that you folks patting yourself on the back would go ahead and push for passage even with pro-abortion language in there. And here you are doing exactly that. I knew it then, and I’m not surprised now.
on March 14th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Sorry, I forgot the link to the USCCB statement (if anyone cares what the bishops have to say on the matter, or are they just shills and hacks for the insurance industry and GOP fat-cats too?).
on March 14th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Bender, the Stupak language was not taken out. It passed. It is only because of Republican intransigence that there is no opportunity to reconcile the two bills as we’d like.
Anyway, once FOCA is passed, all this will be moot. Right?
on March 14th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
David and I would add the anti-abortion/pro-life intransigence on the issue as some in this thread demonstrate.
At what point does religious belief (any and all religions) supersede the will of the elected majority in a democracy.
It is one thing to object. It is another to be so obstructionist that you would rather have nothing than have the State fund abortions as part of health care for the poor especially poor children.
It happens that abortion is legal, until that changes the issue of what the state pays for is moot and a decision for the state to make. BTW thanks for the defense.
Present polls in both Canada & the United States show that the population as a whole is still growing more conservative….in other words the middle is still moving right and this is especially true on moral issues.
It is that kind of data that should give pro-life encouragement and hope. Unfortunately hidden in the word encouragement is the word “rage” and if that is the dominant face pro-life and Republicans continue to demonstrate they are bound to fail and eventually society will teach it to them.
on March 14th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Ijust return to the nPR report of last Monday”s Morning Edition that much of the complaining from Right to Lifers is reall yabout semantics (see Fr. Reese’s comments there.)
I agree that those who are against the rational view of the CHA are talking out of a very one sided perspective.
on March 14th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
David Gibson,
If you have time, I’d like to know what you think of the USCCB’s rebuttal of Jost, linked above. I’m confused.
Especially this bit about the community health centers:
USCCB Response: The Senate bill authorizes and appropriates billions of dollars in new funding –
outside the scope of the appropriations bills covered by the Hyde amendment and similar
provisions — to fund services at (for example) Community Health Centers (Sec. 10503).
Whether the program itself is “new” is irrelevant. These funds are new, and over the next five years they will be provided without being appropriated in the Labor/HHS appropriations act;therefore they are not covered by the Hyde amendment, which says only that funds “appropriated in this Act [the Labor/HHS appropriations act]” may not be used for elective abortions.
Moreover, Community Health Centers are required by statute to provide all “required primary
health care services,” defined to include (among other things) “health services related to…
obstetrics, or gynecology that are furnished by physicians” or other health professionals (42
USCS § 254b (b)(1)). Federal courts have long held that when a statute requires provision of
health services under this or other broad categories, the statute must be construed to include abortion unless it explicitly excludes it. Thus, after the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 and before the first enactment of the Hyde amendment in 1976, the federal government was required to use federal funds to pay for about 300,000 abortions a year, although the Medicaid statute never mentions “abortion.” See, e.g., Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan v.Engler, 73 F.3d 634, 636 (6th Cir. 1996). It follows that the new funds appropriated by this bill over the next five years for these centers will be available for elective abortions, as nothing in this bill (or in any other law) prevents their use for this purpose.
on March 14th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
David G., are you aware that the House vote is the “popular” vote? Does it surprise you that the majority of Americans do not believe that abortion is Health Care and do not believe that a Government sponsored Health Care Bill should include any Insurance coverage that can be used for the destruction of Human Life? Are you seriously trying to argue that only Republicans believe that abortion is not Health Care?
on March 15th, 2010 at 8:20 am
Nancy Danielson, are you saying that a few Pro-life legislators have the right to hold the nation hostage to their view on an issue as life saving as health care reform?
This situation is disgusting and history will condemn both the Republicans and the unsympathetic Democrats for their failure to address the needs of millions to have health insurance if this legislation fails.
on March 15th, 2010 at 8:38 am
John B., what I am saying is that most people recognize that the intentional destruction of a Human Individual in their Mother’s Womb is not Health Care and do not support a National Health Care Plan that would provide Insurance that would cover the cost of ending the Life of the Child growing in their Mother’s Womb. In other words, most people would like to see a Pro-life Health Care Bill because Health Care is mainly about nurturing Human Life.
So why don’t you tell us why the Senate will not pass the Stupak language?
on March 15th, 2010 at 9:29 am
JC, yes, I hope to post more later today. Just jammed with various deadlines. Thanks. David
Nancy, a couple of things: The Senate cannot pass the Stupak language, nor can the House move to include it, because the Republicans will not allow a vote on the bill. THAT is the main problem.
Moreover, the Senate bill is at least as strong if not stronger than the House bill in barring abortion funding and coverage, so what is the difference?
on March 15th, 2010 at 10:44 am
BTW, the Catholic Health Association has no magisterial authority, and is in fact a mere trade association with everything to gain from passage of the Senate bill in financial terms and nothing to lose in terms of moral credibility… except as individual Catholics who are now publicly opposing our bishops on this issue.
“There is nothing wrong with a trade association, but too many reporters, including members of the Catholic press, have sought comment from CHA without recognizing they are primarily an organization with a vested financial interest in the outcome of the health care debate.”
on March 15th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Mike, you’ve clarified something that no one was confused about.
on March 15th, 2010 at 10:59 am
I continue to wonder about the magisterial authority of our leaders including Bishop Murphy,, noted in the Cafardi article. Recent events in that area seem to have further eroded the voice of Church ;leadership.That’s part of the disconnect and I also think that Sr. Carol Keehan is speaking as a recognized health professional and criticizing her view as pure self interest strkes me, right or wrong, as myopic.
What’s sad to me is the Right to Life folks here who see only their perspective as THE perspective and are frequently seen in the broader community as one issue individuals talking down to them.
on March 15th, 2010 at 11:08 am
And here is Timothy Jost’s response to the USCCB memo, which Michael Kelly linked to (oddly, on the NRLC Web site, not the USCCB’s). It’s a PDF:
http://law.wlu.edu/faculty/facultydocuments/jost/Jost_Response_to_Bishops_3.14.10.pdf
on March 15th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Mike–
Though others may be perturbed by the context and perspective you’ve added, I found it eye-opening. Thanks
on March 15th, 2010 at 11:16 am
No one is perturbed, Mark. I would, however, like to know what Mike thinks he knows about the financial interests of the CHA in the passage of health-reform legislation.
on March 15th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Archbishop Chaput strongly criticizes (although doesn’t name) the CHA:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/03/catholics-health-care-and-the-senatersquos-bad-bil
on March 15th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Regrettably the archbishop’s post contains no arguments.
on March 15th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
We have already discussed the LLL, lawyer loophole lingo, that exists in the Senate Bill, which is why we need the Stupak language.
on March 15th, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Grant, thank you for the Jost reply. I thought his first part, where he points out all the good things the bishops said about the Senate bill, was effective.
on March 15th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Nancy, if you need the Stupak language, you should be lobbying Republican Senators to support it and the health care bill. Without Republican support, the bill cannot be amended.
The choice now is between the Senate bill, and nothing. I cannot see how maintaining the status quo, with insurance companies covering abortion at their whim, is a pro-life position. Do you really want insurance companies to cover abortions as a way of avoiding the costs of childbirth?
on March 15th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
There are two entirely different conversations going on. The things in the bill that Sr. Carol Keehan likes are good things. I believe the USCCB would agree; they do take care in virtually all of their statements to remind us that they have been consistent in advocating health care reform.
The things that the USCCB and other pro-life advocacy organizations are objecting to are not the same things that Sr. Keehan touched on, except superficially.
on March 15th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
“I cannot see how maintaining the status quo, with insurance companies covering abortion at their whim, is a pro-life position.”
Jim McK – is the Senate bill going to change that situation for most Americans?
on March 15th, 2010 at 4:21 pm
“The choice is between the Senate bill, and nothing.”
That would be because the usual suspects don’t want to expand those choices, not because they can’t consider other choices.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10031506.html
on March 15th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
I must say I agree with Nancy!
on March 15th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
oops! Oh, you may as well read that as well.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/mar/10031502.html
on March 15th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Jim and Nancy,
Have you read the Jost piece? It struck me as fairly thorough.
Tony
on March 15th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Hi, Tony, yes, I read his response to the Pro-Life Secretariat’s response. At this point, I’m still stuck in competing-experts mode.
on March 15th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
And I agree with Jim!
on March 15th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
BTW, the Catholic Health Association has no magisterial authority . . . .
“Magisterial authority” clearly cannot deal with the questions that remain. The American Bishops have no special competence in interpreting legislation or in predicting what will actually happen if one form of the bill is passes instead of another. Whether the Stupak approach in the House, the Nelson approach in the Senate, or some third set of provisions as yet to be worked out is the most desirable cannot be answered by “magisterial authority.” The bishops have already compromised the Catholic position of “no abortions for any reason, ever” by using the Hyde Amendment as the standard by which to measure health care reform. The Hyde Amendment permits the use of federal funds for abortion in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother.
The “competing experts” Jim refers to above are not necessarily more correct if they are within, or affiliated with, or cited by the USCCB. These arguments are no longer about faith and morals (if they ever were). They are about very complex legislation, and bishops are not legislators or lawyers or health care experts.
on March 15th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
I do think there is an effort to have this appear to be competing interpretations by equal experts, because then folks would just say, Gosh, it’s all so complicated no one can understand it, so best not to pass it in case we open the floodgates to taxpayer funded abortion. That gives one side the victory is desires. But the bill isn’t that complicated, certainly not the portions on abortion, and it is clear the bill does not allow for abortion funding. In fact, if the senate bill could allow for abortion funding, then the House bill could too, since it is also so complex no one can be sure what it will do. Either one will likely need fixes along the way.
on March 15th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Jim P, the Senate bill makes abortion coverage a more noticeable choice, rather than the unregulated and largely unexamined practice that exists today. It is segregated from childbirth expenses. Companies that offer it have to notify purchasers that they not only are offering the coverage, but that purchasers will have to pay an additional fee so that it can be offered.
Nancy, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Who are “the usual suspects”? In Casablanca, it referred to people with criminal reputations who were rounded up and accused of a crime they did not commit to offer cover for those who did commit the crime. Your rhetoric usually blames the Democrats, but the reference here would mean they are innocent, and you are only bringing them up to try and deflect criticism from the real perpetrators.
So, if you are saying that the Democrats are innocent, and the Republicans are the ones who are blocking consideration, then I agree with you too. If you mean something else, I have no idea what you are suggesting the Democrats can do.
on March 16th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
“The “competing experts” Jim refers to above are not necessarily more correct if they are within, or affiliated with, or cited by the USCCB. ”
I agree with the general tenor of this. I would say that the USCCB secretariat’s credibility on this question is based, not on the fact that they happen to be affiliated with bishops, but on their track record in the trenches – analyzing, lobbying, organizing, consulting, perhaps litigating – over many years. I consider them to be experts on the question of abortion legislation because they are very much “plugged in” to the issue.
Of course, the bishops, as authentic teachers of morality, provide a layer of sound moral reasoning to underlie that essential political work.
on March 16th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
“I do think there is an effort to have this appear to be competing interpretations by equal experts, because then folks would just say, Gosh, it’s all so complicated no one can understand it, so best not to pass it in case we open the floodgates to taxpayer funded abortion. ”
I’m sure that is true at some level, but I wouldn’t ascribe that motive to the USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat. I think they’re trying to provide reasons for their position. That’s the right thing to do, yes?