Yesterday, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published a statement to go along with the signing of the new healthcare bill by President Obama. I posted the statement yesterday on this blog, but it can also be found here. It, and the letter to Congress that I also posted yesterday, are important statements, both for what it says concerning healthcare and what it says about pro-life in general. Please read the statement as I can only copy a few of the comments. Among the comments I found interesting are the few below. In each case I quote the comment, then put my analysis below the comment.
For nearly a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for reform of our health care system so that all may have access to the care that recognizes and affirms their human dignity.
1. Health care is for all, and our system needs reform because it does not provide all with access to health care. We have been fighting that battle for nearly a century. An even stronger statement was made on 20 March, when the bishops wrote to Congress, “For decades, the United States Catholic bishops have supported universal health care.” If you are a good Roman Catholic, you need to support universal health care as your appropriately moral position. Failure to support universal health care is to put you on the wrong side of Roman Catholic doctrine as surely as those who fail to support the dignity of human life in other areas. You need not support every health care plan, but you need to support some universal health care plan, otherwise you are not truly pro-life.
Many elements of the health care reform measure signed into law by the President address these concerns and so help to fulfill the duty that we have to each other for the common good. We are bishops, and therefore pastors and teachers. In that role, we applaud the effort to expand health care to all.
2. Many parts of the recently passed health care bill are good and worthy of support, and in signing this type of bill the President helps to fulfill his duty to the common good. The bishops again repeat their support for universal health care.
Nevertheless, for whatever good this law achieves or intends, we as Catholic bishops have opposed its passage because there is compelling evidence that it would expand the role of the federal government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion.
3. However, even such a good as universal health care cannot take place in an environment in which some human life is not valued. Abortion is a great evil, great enough that it needs to be taken into consideration. Notice something very important in the language above. The bishops point out that one part of their opposition to the bill is because it appears to be set to increase federal funding of abortion. Nevertheless, the bishops did not say that they would oppose the bill per se. In other language in both today’s and the 20th March statements, they make it plain that provided the bill would maintain the status quo of the Hyde amendment, they would cautiously support it. In one sense it reaffirms the first statement that to be Roman Catholic and pro-life is to be in favor of universal health care.
The statute is also profoundly flawed because it has failed to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protections (both within and beyond the abortion context). As well, many immigrant workers and their families could be left worse off since they will not be allowed to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges to be created, even if they use their own money.
4. Please note that two statements of flaw are put side by side and they may surprise some. The first one is obvious to most pro-life people. It is morally reprehensible to force someone to perform an abortion against their conscience. But, notice the contrast. It is equally morally reprehensible to oppose medical coverage, for illegal immigrants. To deny people some basic human rights and dignity simply because they are here illegally is against Roman Catholic teaching, against a pro-life stance, and equal in immorality to requiring someone to support abortions against their conscience. The two sins are considered equivalent in this statement.
As bishops, we wish to recognize the principled actions of the pro-life Members of Congress from both parties, in the House and the Senate, who have worked courageously to create legislation that respects the principles outlined above. They have often been vilified and have worked against great odds.
5. Finally, this is not either a Democratic or a Republican issue. The bishops make it plain that they support people of good will regardless of their party identification. Shouting “baby killer” at a member of Congress is not an ethical Roman Catholic response.
So, as I look back at the two statements by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I ask those of you who are Roman Catholic and read this blog whether you are fully pro-life by the definitions given by your own bishops. For those of you who are Orthodox, I would point out that I am almost certain that the position above would also be the Orthodox position (at least among the Antiochians). Are you fully pro-life, or have you picked and chosen your stances so that you are pro-life on only one issue, but not pro-life on the other issues? To be fully pro-life, as an United States Roman Catholic, you need to be in alignment with the voice of your bishops over nearly a century. To be short of that makes you simply somewhat pro-life and somewhat immoral.
“Nevertheless, for whatever good this law achieves or intends, we as Catholic bishops have opposed its passage because there is compelling evidence that it would expand the role of the federal government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion.”
Fr. Ernesto, thanks for posting these statements and for your analysis. I’m one of those millions who had tuned out because of all of the confusion.
All I know is that with the latest Anthem/Blue Cross/Blue Shield increase my insurance premiums will have nearly tripled (2.66 X) in little more than five years. I’m now at a $15,000 deductible and have nowhere left to go but to drop out. Something had to change, and soon.
But back to the quote above: I was under the impression that funding for abortion was left out of the bill in order that it pass. What’s really going on here? Should I celebrate this thing or not?
“One should never watch sausage or laws being made.”
— Otto von Bismarck
I thought that was diplomacy, not laws, but it’s the same thing 🙂
Notice the passage by the bishops, “there is compelling evidence that it would expand the role of the federal government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion.” Abortion is never directly mentioned in the bill. However, as various people have picked through the bill they argue that the way that it is written will have the effect of supporting abortion. In other words, the argument is a “follow the trail” argument rather than any mention in the bill. There are several reasons:
The House bill that was originally passed specifically mentioned the Hyde Amendment (from 1976) a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions. It is not a permanent law, rather it is a “rider” that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Senate removed the mention of the Hyde Amendment. There is a legal argument that says that since it is no longer attached as a rider, this means that the courts will rule that it was not Congress’ intention to apply it to this bill, therefore, federal money may be used to subsidize abortion. In order to counter this argument and get the bill passed, President Obama signed an Executive Order today ensuring that existing limits on the federal funding of abortion remain in place under the new health care reform law. Already there are people lining up to say that this is an useless exercise and that the courts will not enforce the Executive Order.
There is also an argument that the federal subsidies for the health pools would also subsidize abortions since many of the insurances would offer abortion benefits. And, there were further arguments that if your company chose one of the insurances that offer abortion benefits that you would end up subsidizing abortions with your money. This last argument I find strange since that is already true without the subsidies. If you have Blue Cross / Blue Shield or United Healthcare or any of several insurance plans, your money already is part of the pool from which abortions are paid. Nevertheless, the law now includes a part that requires every pool to have a non-abortion-provider company and says that if you choose an insurance provider who supplies abortion services then you pay a surcharge so that supposedly all abortions are financed by private money.
There is also an argument that the new federally run community health clinics would also end up participating in abortion and thus federal money would be spent to subsidize abortion. The Executive Order also addresses this issue and forbids any such expenditure.
Because the arguments are not direct but rather are logical conclusions, the post-vote letter by the bishops points out a couple of issues that still needs to be cleaned up, but takes the rather cautious tone that they will be keeping a close eye on the process to make sure that the Executive Order is being carried out.
I am with the bishops. I am cautiously in favor of the bill, but want to see the additional items that the bishops mentioned being fixed, so that, at a minimum, the current status quo can be kept.
Here is the problem. Since abortion is legal in this country, almost any federal money that goes into any insurance plans or into any health care options can be said to indirectly support abortion. Thus, if you are already pre-disposed against universal health care, you can always oppose it on the grounds of abortion and feel that it has nothing to do with universal health care.
The Catholic bishops are in favor of universal health care and thus are more cautious in their tone and their approaches. They are fervently against abortion and so opposed the bill as amended by the Senate. But, as their post-letter points out, they are cautious about the Executive Order. Nevertheless, rather that the strict opposition of the 20th March letter, they are now talking about fixes that would make for an allowable bill.
Re Point 4: Orthocuban, you would not believe how hot-button an issue Immigration (TM) is among us Anglos here in Southern California. The only way I can describe the intensity would be if you were to go “Viva Fidel!” at your family reunion. THAT’s how intense and hair-trigger it can get out here. The last Mayor of Los Angeles election was literally campaigned as “Que Es Mas Mexicano?” and we’ve got loudmouthed Raza Boys (Mexican Supremacists) shooting their mouths off about “La Reconquista”, matched decibel by decibel by Anglo talk radio. Cali’s always been a granola bowl, but this is just South Park CRAZY. (As if we didn’t have enough problems with rampant corruption and arrogance in Sacramento…)
(P.S. I KNOW “Hispanic” does NOT mean Mexican. By Federal legal definition, an Argentino or Castilliano — or a Brazilian, for that matter — would also be “Hispanic” Historically, the ethnic difference in the American Southwest has always been defined by language — “Anglo” for English-speakers and “Hispanics” for Spanish-speakers. Always made much more sense to me than the usual coloration method. (And I always liked local1970s-vintage slang of “Surfer” & “Lowrider” for Anglo & Hispanic.) Just Mexicans are the largest (and often loudest) ethnic group of Spanish-speakers out here, so any Spanish-speaker gets assumed to be Mexican. Which does not sit well with the Central or South Americans.)
Yes, but morality is more important than the bigots on either side (Mexican or Anglo). To deny health care or the right to buy health insurance is immoral. The bishops were clear on that, and I agree.
As has been pointed out, an executive order can be unordered, but until that is done, I think I must try to have some perhaps idealic idea that it was done in good faith regarding the abortion issue. I can tend to get a little self-righteous in that I carefully planned my situation so that I would have adequate health care options, but if I am truthful, I can see that not everyone had the options I have had.
On the other hand, I know people who have the funds to purchase health care and have some sort of option at their place of employment who have chosen not to purchase such health care. (That makes no sense to me, but……) Does the government have the right to mandate that someone purchase healthcare? Or is it the mandate of government to ensure that people who wish it have affordable options?
As far as illegal aliens–there status is another issue, but I do not think that basic needs of anyone should be ignored. If someone has the funds to purchase insurance, no one should stop them even if it is an affordable option supported by govenment funds. I as a health care professional have seen emergency rooms innundated by folks who were not in the country legally as well as the urban poor and others for routine sorts of things that would have been taken care of in their family doctor’s office if they had that option and have seen conditions that if promptly treated would not have become urgent enough to really need emergency care. No one can be turned down for emergency care, so in some places, that option has become the family doctor of the poor. This is not a good use of resources and has even led to the closure of emergency departments and even some inner city hospitals.
There must be other options, though I feel rather cautious about this bill especially the pork and special deals that have been made. I personally wonder why they just did not open the federal health care network to everyone. There are enough low cost and high cost insurance options there and a government supported option could have been added for the poor. The super structure is already in place.
Another option would have been to set up something akin to the VA system. (Granted not everything is perfect in the VA system, but as a retired VA nurse who worked at more than one VA hospital in different areas of the country, I have seen the excellent care given–both preventive and dealing with chronic health issues. And the government already knows how to do that sort of thing more or less efficiently including the electronic availibility of health records throughout the system.)
Then there is the issue of tort reform…..sigh…..
I am just not sure the bill as written is the best way to go especially since most of the provisions do not really go into effect until 2014.
I am cautiously withholding judgement.
Alix
“If you are a good Roman Catholic, you need to support universal health care as your appropriately moral position.” That’s a pretty astounding statement. Anyone that thinks that “universal health care” from the US Government is ever going be an appropriate moral option is bordelin delusional. I’m sure that, along with many sleeping Americans, the sound bites sound really good to you, but I just can’t buy it. I thought that Catholics, along with most Christians in this country, were about hospitals, and Churches and Christians caring for people as Christ called them to do. Good luck trying to find that in Government run universal health care!
Governmental run health care will work diligently to insure that very soon there will be very few Christian doctors, and no Christian hospitals. And certainly you will have NO moral options when health care providers are assigned. Is this not obvious?
The problem, of course, is that phrase “government run.” The current proposals are for privately-run, government subsidized health insurance, not for a government run health care system. There is no intent to do away with the private sector. However, please also read the comments above by Alix who worked as a VA nurse for many years. She can tell you that what you describe is simply not happening.
The arguments against universal health care mostly posit only the worst possible results. Yet, there are several countries were that have universal health care that is not the government running the hospitals, etc., and doing quite well at it.
BTW, that statement of mine is a faithful summary of the statements from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, two of which I posted. So, you must be quite astounded with the Roman Catholic bishops of this country.
In the over 25 years I worked at the VA, I was never asked to do anything that was against my Christian values. There is a chapel and chaplains (with folks who can be called in for faiths where a full time chaplain is not needed such as Buddist, Hindu, etc.) at every VA hospital. Church services are held every Sunday and every major feast day. There are many ecumenical services for things like Martin Luther King Day with prayers and participation from people within the hospital and from the community. Church groups come to volunteer, to do Christmas and Easter concerts and caroling and to do things like assist hospitalized vets with personal chores such as getting things at the store, etc. Most of the people I worked with were religious/spiritual people and were dedicated to giving the best of care to those who were willing by their service to give “the last full measure of devotion”. Never was there any attempt to run Christians off or to make people do things against their moral values.
I have also worked almost 10 years for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in a Mental Health Hospital. Those same thing applied there as well. I have worked in Catholic hospitals and public hospitals and private not-for profit hospitals. Same…..
When people are ill, they need and seek out their faith. When my father was dying in a local hospital in Alabama, we were offered the ssistance of the hospital chaplain and the nurses and doctors not only gave my father excellent care, but they also gave him and us spiritual care.
Part of my education as a nurse was the total care of the patient–not just the care of the body, but the care of the mind, emotions and spiritual needs of the patient and the family. There is many a time in each of those settings that I have prayed with a patient or family when asked. Usually the rule is you don’t push your own “stuff” on them, but no one has ever gotten upset with me either client or staff when I told people that a chaplain or a chapel was available or prayed with them. Nursing publications address the spiritual needs of patients and families all the time. I cannot imagine that changing nor can I imagine that all the hospital chaplains and chapels or prayer rooms will suddenly vanish overnight when the government is paying more of the tab.
I am also a former Army “brat” and former Army wife. It is ditto for the military.
Alix