I recently read a poignant editorial written by Bishop Charles Chaput. The basic gist of his piece related to abortion and healthcare funding in the States. What fuelled the editorial was an article published in the British Catholic Journal, which argued that the US bishops were, to their supposed detriment, focusing too strongly on the issue of abortion and ignoring other issues relating to the common good in their critique of the incumbent president.
What I can’t get over, is the general attitude of this vocal group of Catholics (not limited to the paper in question) who believe the Obama presidency is worthy of support. It’s not actually that hard. The issue does not need to be overcomplicated. Plain and simple, there is only one position to be held on issues regarding the sanctity and dignity of the human person. Bishop Chaput puts it best, stating,
the growing misuse of Catholic “common ground” and “common good” language in the current health-care debate can only stem from one of two sources: ignorance or cynicism. No system that allows or helps fund – no matter how subtly or indirectly — the killing of unborn children, or discrimination against the elderly and persons with special needs, can bill itself as “common ground.” Doing so is a lie.
Personally, I think the U.S Bishops, although a tad slow in commencing their critique, have done a wonderful job in taking to task the President and other pro-abortion politicians. What Obama and his colleagues are fighting for ain’t “common ground”, well at least in the sense that we catholics define it. What they are fighting for is a destructive type of utilitarianism that refuses to value the weakest in society – the unborn, the elderly, the sick, and the disabled – as they are not perceived to have any social utility. Let’s face it, that’s what matters these days.
I recently joined a private group with the aim of thinking of ways to instigate social change with regards to the abortion issue. I really liked the way that the creator of the group conceived of change. I have posted the blurb below for your consideration.
We all know that the murder of unborn children is one of the greatest injustices of our time. The question is: what are we going to do about it?
What is required is not simply a legal battle in the courts or the introduction of new legislation, but a social shift in New Zealand and the entire world.
This TRANSFORMATION of society is something that will take time, probably many years, which is why we have to start now. But just because it will take time and effort, does not mean that it cannot be done.
There have been many social movements throughout history that have succeeded against all odds. If William Wilberforce could end the slave-trade, if Martin Luther King Jr could gain civil rights for African-Americans and if our own Kate Sheppard could win women the right to vote, then we CAN abolish abortion.
On the abortion topic, does anyone know anything about the movie doco linked here. I would be very interested to get a hold of it. The testimony from the woman from Planned Parenthood at the beginning sent shivers down my spine and made me feel sick, literally nauseous. (anyone who cares about the dignity of the human person would, not to mention someone who prides them self on being a feminist).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYaTywSDmls&feature=email
Michael Sean Winters very ably replies to Abp Chaput here
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/archbishop-chaput-right
While Abp Chaput is correct that state funding of abortion would be against the Common Good, and there is some concern about what Obama’s healthcare reforms might do in terms of abortion, I’ve yet to see any evidence that the reforms actually do contain the claimed provisions to fund abortions.
And they certainly don’t contain provisions to set up “death panels” as some on the US Right have wildly claimed.
Yet again, we seem to be seeing the Catholic Right continuing to cry wolf over Obama as they have since before his election.
And yet again, there is no evidence to back up their claims.
The Common Ground position is simply that some 50 million odd Americans have no proper healthcare coverage. Unlike NZ where we have thankfully have public healthcare, the US system largely relies on having private health insurance which is becoming increasingly unaffordable for many Americans.
It is a very good thing that the Obama administration is trying to reform the US healthcare system to bring care to the sick currently denied it. The US Bishops have been calling for such reform for many decades and strongly support support such reform.
The Common Good requires that healthcare be provided to all – not just the wealthy.
I think this of Filia’s claim is unsupported by any solid evidence and uncharitable :-
God Bless
Bishop Gumbleton gave an excellent homily the other Sunday relating the teaching on the Eucharist from John’s Gospel to the debate on health care reform.
Bishop Gumbleton points out the urgent need for health care reform in the USA.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/peace-pulpit/eucharist-and-health-care
God Bless
Yet again, we seem to be seeing the Catholic Right continuing to cry wolf over Obama as they have since before his election.
Look at the poll numbers, Chris. You can’t blame this on a small group like the Catholic Right. I think the latest number I saw for Obama was -12 — 12 per cent more people disapprove of his performance than approve.
Why? In large part, because of this well-intentioned but completely impractical healthcare plan. It’s a noble goal to want everyone to have healthcare. Bankrupting the country, which the independent Congressional Budget Office has warned will happen, means it’s doomed to fail.
People like Bishop Gumbleton and Winters see abortion as “just another issue”. It’s not.
We have universal healthcare in New Zealand and it hasn’t bankrupted us and the US Catholic Bishops don’t fear it will bankrupt the US either.
I have read many articles by Michael Sean Winters in which he makes very clear his opposition to all forms of abortion, and his opposition to pro-abortion currents supporting Obama.
There are VERY wealthy and VERY powerful forces opposed to healthcare reform in the USA because much of the 17% of GDP the US spends on healthcare goes into private companies, especially insurance companies which naturally don’t like the threat of some serious competition from the state and some curbs on their rights to reject healthcare.
The level of debate in the US over healthcare has descended to comparisons of Obama to Hitler and to opponents openly carrying guns to town hall meetings.
Naturally the GOP are busy milking the situation for all its worth.
God Bless
No one here (I hope) is arguing the United States doesn’t need a massive reformation of the health system.
Chris you are slightly inaccurate; ACC is currently in deep dog doo. Its cutting back on physio (thank God; my almost socialist mother who is a doctor so is really for universal healthcare even agrees this is a good thing; we are one of the only countries in the world to emphasise physio with no real evidence for it actually working). I believe Frances’ public healthcare system is also almost bankrupt.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t have some form of universal healthcare (I like the NZ system) I’m just saying be careful when saying it won’t bankrupt countries. I personally think something like universal healthcare should transcend political boundaries as it does in most countries; thus conservative Canadians still support it, and I consider myself conservative and still support it.
America has a totally different world-view and I think it would do well to try and understand it, even if you disagree with it. They were founded very much on principals of keeping the government out of their affairs as much as possible, as a revolt against the English. This has continued and whether right or wrong, this is the world-view much of them come from. For them, that much government involvement IS tantamount to socialism, something many have an irrational fear of. COuple that with massive debt from the previous administrations, and a massive bill trying to stimulate the economy and you can see why many are nervous.
And in fact universal health care DOES come with its share of problems; has anyone read the undercover economist? A great read and in it he goes through many countries health care systems and lands upon Singapore’s as being the best. They have some sort of compulsory health insurance, as well as private. Canada is definitely not the best which is unfortunate because its what America keeps comparing universal healthcare to.
Gianna,
I agree that much of this is an irrational fear of what’s pejoratively termed “socialised medicine”, which is odd when one considers that the US has had “socialised medicine” in the form of Medicaid for the elderly for many years.
Even the highest estimates of the cost of the reforms ($US 1 trillion over 10 years) are less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States
And that’s well less than what the US currently spends on foreign wars.
One of the problems in healthcare is the steadily rising cost due to the expense of all the wonderful modern treatments now available.
Any medical system is going to have to include at least some element of rationing to control costs.
Catholic theology has long understood this, holding that medical treatments which are unreasonably financially burdensome are not morally obligatory.
God Bless
Chris,
Winters is better than some, but I believe he — and some other Catholic pro-lifers — are too quick to give Obama and other political leaders in the US the benefit of the doubt on issues relating to life.
Anyway, here’s the US bishops’ website looking at the healthcare discussion, for anyone who’s interested: http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/index.shtml
And here’s a good article from Zenit pointing out the positive intent of health care reform but the negative outcomes the current proposals would yield: http://www.zenit.org/article-26616?l=english
I think the USCCB website puts the position much better than Abp Chaput does.
It starts out by focusing on the USCCB Position on Health Care Reform:
* 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
* pursuing the common good and preserving pluralism including freedom of conscience and variety of options
* restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers
and then asks Catholics to lobby politicians and tell them health care reform should:
1. Include health care coverage for all people from conception until natural death, and continue the federal ban on funding for abortions;
2. Include access for all with a special concern for the poor;
3. Pursue the common good and preserve pluralism, including freedom of conscience; and
4. Restrain costs and apply costs equitably among payers.
I find that an excellent and clear exposition of the Catholic position with a clear call for Catholics to take action.
Well done, US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
God Bless
Yes, Chris, but some of the bills that are being put forward (there are several) don’t have the necessary provisions in place to ensure there is no federal funding for abortion. Some are obviously written in such a way that federal funding for abortion will be an outcome.
From the most recent issue of NZ Catholic:
too quick to give Obama and other political leaders in the US the benefit of the doubt
I thought Catholics were required to give others the benefit of the doubt, as the Catechism teaches:
I think that too often some Catholics confuse the intent of the pro-choice lobby with the intent of the Obama administration and too often things are construed to paint the Obama administration in the worst possible light when deeper investigation reveals that the Obama administration hasn’t acted anywhere near as anti-life as is alleged.
God Bless
too often things are construed to paint the Obama administration in the worst possible light when deeper investigation reveals that the Obama administration hasn’t acted anywhere near as anti-life as is alleged
Ask the people in Afghanistan about that, Chris….
Congressman Cao is a Republican.
If he’d done all he could to oppose state funding of abortions, by voting against such provisions in the bill, but the final bill did contain such provisions, then I think he’d be on solid moral ground in voting for the final bill in order to obtain universal health care.
Because
1. Such a vote is not a vote for state funding of abortions.
2. The good of universal health care, because it will save lives, is proportional to the unintended evil.
Politics is very much the stuff of compromise and doing what one can.
Congressman Cao says that I cannot be privy to a law that will allow the potential of destroying thousands of innocent lives.
If this reform is defeated, then then the result will be even worse than the potential of destroying thousands of innocent lives.
It will be the actual destroying thousands of innocent lives.
The lives of many of those 50 million odd Americans currently without healthcare coverage.
God Bless
Scribe,
Good point in 11.
It’s odd all the space wasted in Catholic blogs and newspapers and bishops statements on deaths Obama might cause when they don’t complain about the thousands of deaths he is causing.
God Bless
Oh, and by the way, Chris, my condolences for the death of Sen. Kennedy. He was no doubt a hero of yours for his work for MANY poor people, but not the poorest of the poor.
He’d be proud of your comments above.
Congressman Cao is a Republican.
Therefore ignore what he says or does! Watch out, he must have an agenda!! Democrats don’t have agendas!! They are all peace and awesomeness
I thought Catholics were required to give others the benefit of the doubt, as the Catechism teaches:
Unless they are Republicans. Or George Weigal
Chris I appreciate you trying to demonstrate that someone’s political viewpoint might colour what they say (as in the case of Congressman Cao) but sometimes your such obvious disdain rings true of an ad hominin attack, which is not the basis for an argument.
I’d have to agree.
His speech opposing the war was amazingly prophetic as to the resulting mess he foresaw, at a time when many others, the NY Times included, were baying for war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/26/remembering-ted-kennedys_n_269461.html
God Bless
He cast a lot of votes in opposition to the unborn, though. In fact, in his time as a senator, 30 million plus Americans were killed in their mothers’ wombs.
Look here for his glowing endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood etc.
He’d have been one of the few. I think even Obama cast a vote for the war, right? There were only like 3 or 4 senators in total that were against the war in 2002
Gianna,
Obama wasn’t a US Senator at the time, so didn’t have a vote to cast. He says he would have voted against it if he was in a position to vote, but we’ll never REALLY know.
My mistake
Pray for Kennedy
anyone that gets such glowing praise from NARAL needs them
right now he is being asked; what you did to the least… you did to me……why?
DV
Playing God again?
HB
WWJDo?
we are all called to account for our acts and omissions.
Still praying for you though, where there is life there is hope!
Helens Bay,
playing peacemaker again?!
And yet again, there is no evidence to back up their claims
Personally I’m not up on the play with what’s going on in America with the health reforms, I’m just reading some information from some blogs, which I imagine is what most of us here are doing. But I wouldn’t say that there’s no evidence, I would say that there is, it’s just that some people don’t want to know.
Here’s a youtube video of a congresswoman admitting that abortion will be covered in the health care legislation:
http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/08/video-congresswoman-admits-abortion-in.html
http://www.lifenews.com/nat5349.html
el,
Read what Lofgren actually said:
That’s not admitting that abortion will be covered in the health care plan.
It’s just admitting her own desire for abortion to be covered.
She went on to add:
But, those “healthcare plans available to Americans” which Lofgren refers to, include private plans with premiums paid by private individuals and companies, which already include plans which fund abortion.
No change there.
I agree with the US Bishops that the new law ought to rule out state funded abortions. But I don’t see that the proposals actually mandate state funded abortions at all, that’s merely speculation about what might happen.
God Bless
The Capps ammendemnt, passed by the House, rules out public funding of abortions as part of the Obama healthcare plan:-
That’s consistent with Obama’s earlier comments:
God Bless
Ah the great debate indeed. I offer some observations.
Chris,
Michael Sean Winters very ably replies to Abp Chaput here
Actually, from reading Winter’s article, it isn’t much of a reply to Chaput at all, rather a complete white-wash of the whole issue. Just for the sake of argument, let me reiterate Chaput’s main point(as stated by FD in the thread posting):
‘the growing misuse of Catholic “common ground” and “common good” language in the current health-care debate can only stem from one of two sources: ignorance or cynicism. No system that allows or helps fund – no matter how subtly or indirectly — the killing of unborn children, or discrimination against the elderly and persons with special needs, can bill itself as “common ground.” Doing so is a lie.’
While Abp Chaput is correct that state funding of abortion would be against the Common Good, and there is some concern about what Obama’s healthcare reforms might do in terms of abortion, I’ve yet to see any evidence that the reforms actually do contain the claimed provisions to fund abortions.
Well apparently there is enough of a claim to have both the U.S Bishops Conference and the co-leader of the Democrat pro-life caucus in the House, Rep. Bart Stupak, pull their support for the bill. Stupak has already vowed to appose the bill unless an amendment is adopted that explicitly bars abortion from the healthcare reform, saying then “We [Stupak and another forty democrat pro-lifers] are going to do everything we can to stop the rule, or the bill, from coming to the floor,” So opposition to Obama’s supposed reform isn’t just coming from Republicans.
In July, the House Committee on Ways and Means, which approved the current bill being regarded, considered the following amendment sponsored by Rep. Eric Cantor:
No funds authorized under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for an abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible rape or incest.
Put frankly, the amendment barred “government funding of abortion.” It failed: 19 voted for it and 22 voted against it. Furthermore, Chris, have look at this from the Catholic League;
DEBUNKING THE MYTH-BUSTERS: ABORTION IS IN HEALTH BILLS
August 14, 2009
Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented today on the health care bills:
In today’s New York Daily News, there is an article seeking to debunk various myths about the health care bills. Unfortunately, the two reporters were guilty of floating the myth that “None of the bills working their way through Congress provides any federal funds for abortion.” Thus does the Daily News join a list of other media outlets that have disseminated this nonsense; AP had the decency to reverse itself.
Abortion is in the bills. Here’s the proof: Amendments to explicitly exclude abortion from the bills have been sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak, Rep. Joe Pitts, Rep. Eric Cantor, Rep. Sam Johnson, Sen. Mike Enzi and Sen. Orrin Hatch. In every case, they lost. Want more proof? When Rep. Pitts asked Committee Counsel about whether the amendment by Rep. Lois Capps would allow the secretary of health and human services (HHS) to cover abortion in the public plan, he was told it did. And since HHS head Kathleen Sebelius supports partial-birth abortion, is there anyone in his right mind who thinks she would balk at authorizing abortion? Want more proof? On Aug. 10, when Rep. Zoe Lofgren was specifically asked about this subject, she said, “Abortion will be covered as a benefit by one or more of the healthcare plans available to Americans, and I think it should be.”
Let’s be frank: abortion is no more mentioned specifically in these bills than appendectomies are, but because both are legal, both are understood to be included. That is why attempts to exclude abortion were made. [veritas' emphasis added] That they failed should settle the issue. Yet the following pro-abortion groups continue to lie and say abortion isn’t covered: NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Center for American Progress and People for the American Way. Interestingly, MoveOn.org is firing e-mails all over debunking five myths about the bills. It is correct on all five. Noticeably absent from its list is abortion. That’s because they know it’s in the bills.
Need any more proof?
And they certainly don’t contain provisions to set up “death panels” as some on the US Right have wildly claimed.
Acutalluy those cluases regarding euthanasia were in the bill, were dropped by a senate committee, thank God for Republicans I suppose and their annoying unwillingness (aye Chris?) to submit to the almighty supremacy of Obama. In saying that, the question of assisted suicide in the healthcare reform still remains.
Yet again, we seem to be seeing the Catholic Right continuing to cry wolf over Obama as they have since before his election.
And yet again, there is no evidence to back up their claims.
As Gianna noted before, Chris, for all your accusations of partisanship among ‘right-wing’ Catholics, it seems you can’t bear to even admit that Obama might just be wrong for once. It is ridiculous to even bring up such terms in this discussion as issues such as abortion, for Catholics, transcend party politics.
As for crying wolf, I am baffled. If Obama is so concerned about healthcare reform, why would he and his fellows risk the bill by refusing to remove abortion provision from its final draft? The president’s 100% rating with the NARAL and voting record on partial-birth abortion and post-natal health care speaks for itself; Obama has assembled the most pro-abortion administration in American history- and is therefore unsurprising in his actions towards health reform. See here for more evidence on Obama and abortion.
The Common Ground position is simply that some 50 million odd Americans have no proper healthcare coverage. Unlike NZ where we have thankfully have public healthcare, the US system largely relies on having private health insurance which is becoming increasingly unaffordable for many Americans.
The ‘common ground’ is not an excuse for Catholic turncoats like Ted Kennedy and Senator Tim Ryan to compromise Catholic moral teaching in regards to basic human rights, just so they can maintain popularity among the liberal elite. Although no one denies the need for health reform in America, it should not be done at the expense of another segment of society.
It is a very good thing that the Obama administration is trying to reform the US healthcare system to bring care to the sick currently denied it. The US Bishops have been calling for such reform for many decades and strongly support such reform.
Indeed, the U.S bishops have been calling for such reforms for many a decade and therefore the fact that the USCBC has withdrawn its support for the bill should speak volumes.
The Common Good requires that healthcare be provided to all – not just the wealthy.
Agreed, but as Bill Donahue pointed out, the bill in its current state funds abortion, ‘Which means that practicing Catholic non-white poor women will be forced to pay for the abortions of rich white women—women who equate abortion with a root canal.’ Hardly ‘common ground’?
Well done, US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Yes, well done US Bishops. Too bad they don’t agree with you Chris.
If this reform is defeated, then the result will be even worse than the potential of destroying thousands of innocent lives.
It will be the actual destroying thousands of innocent lives.
The lives of many of those 50 million odd Americans currently without healthcare coverage.
What a load of nonsense, or are you really suggesting Chris that we save 50 million people at the expense of another 50 million people? The end justifies the means? And this is coming from the man who equated smacking with slavery and the death penalty. How distorted.
In any case, it is in fact the reversal of what you suggest. 50 million odd Americans currently living without healthcare coverage might potentially die. On the other hand, we know the millions of babies are being aborted on a daily basis.
On a closing note, if America’s health reform fails, we’ll have Obama and his rapid pro-abortion polices to thank.
Ah the great debate indeed. I offer some observations.
Chris,
Michael Sean Winters very ably replies to Abp Chaput here
Actually, from reading Winter’s article, it isn’t much of a reply to Chaput at all, rather a complete white-wash of the whole issue. Just for the sake of argument, let me reiterate Chaput’s main point(as stated by FD in the thread posting):
‘the growing misuse of Catholic “common ground” and “common good” language in the current health-care debate can only stem from one of two sources: ignorance or cynicism. No system that allows or helps fund – no matter how subtly or indirectly — the killing of unborn children, or discrimination against the elderly and persons with special needs, can bill itself as “common ground.” Doing so is a lie.’
Here is the crux of the matter, from a man who knows what hes talking about.
While Abp Chaput is correct that state funding of abortion would be against the Common Good, and there is some concern about what Obama’s healthcare reforms might do in terms of abortion, I’ve yet to see any evidence that the reforms actually do contain the claimed provisions to fund abortions.
Well apparently there is enough of a claim to have both the U.S Bishops Conference and the co-leader of the Democrat pro-life caucus in the House, Rep. Bart Stupak, pull their support for the bill. Stupak has already vowed to appose the bill unless an amendment is adopted that explicitly bars abortion from the healthcare reform, saying then “We [Stupak and another forty democrat pro-lifers] are going to do everything we can to stop the rule, or the bill, from coming to the floor,” So opposition to Obama’s supposed reform isn’t just coming from Republicans.
In July, the House Committee on Ways and Means, which approved the current bill being regarded, considered the following amendment sponsored by Rep. Eric Cantor:
No funds authorized under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) may be used to pay for an abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the result of an act of forcible rape or incest.
Put frankly, the amendment barred “government funding of abortion.” It failed: 19 voted for it and 22 voted against it. Furthermore, Chris, have look at this from the Catholic League;
DEBUNKING THE MYTH-BUSTERS: ABORTION IS IN HEALTH BILLS
August 14, 2009
Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented today on the health care bills:
In today’s New York Daily News, there is an article seeking to debunk various myths about the health care bills. Unfortunately, the two reporters were guilty of floating the myth that “None of the bills working their way through Congress provides any federal funds for abortion.” Thus does the Daily News join a list of other media outlets that have disseminated this nonsense; AP had the decency to reverse itself.
Abortion is in the bills. Here’s the proof: Amendments to explicitly exclude abortion from the bills have been sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak, Rep. Joe Pitts, Rep. Eric Cantor, Rep. Sam Johnson, Sen. Mike Enzi and Sen. Orrin Hatch. In every case, they lost. Want more proof? When Rep. Pitts asked Committee Counsel about whether the amendment by Rep. Lois Capps would allow the secretary of health and human services (HHS) to cover abortion in the public plan, he was told it did. And since HHS head Kathleen Sebelius supports partial-birth abortion, is there anyone in his right mind who thinks she would balk at authorizing abortion? Want more proof? On Aug. 10, when Rep. Zoe Lofgren was specifically asked about this subject, she said, “Abortion will be covered as a benefit by one or more of the healthcare plans available to Americans, and I think it should be.”
Let’s be frank: abortion is no more mentioned specifically in these bills than appendectomies are, but because both are legal, both are understood to be included. That is why attempts to exclude abortion were made. [veritas' emphasis added] That they failed should settle the issue. Yet the following pro-abortion groups continue to lie and say abortion isn’t covered: NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Center for American Progress and People for the American Way. Interestingly, MoveOn.org is firing e-mails all over debunking five myths about the bills. It is correct on all five. Noticeably absent from its list is abortion. That’s because they know it’s in the bills.
Need any more proof?
And they certainly don’t contain provisions to set up “death panels” as some on the US Right have wildly claimed.
Acutalluy those cluases regarding euthanasia were in the bill, were dropped by a senate committee, thank God for Republicans I suppose and their annoying unwillingness (aye Chris?) to submit to the almighty supremacy of Obama. In saying that, the question of assisted suicide in the healthcare reform still remains.
Yet again, we seem to be seeing the Catholic Right continuing to cry wolf over Obama as they have since before his election.
And yet again, there is no evidence to back up their claims.
As Gianna noted before, Chris, for all your accusations of partisanship among ‘right-wing’ Catholics, it seems you can’t bear to even admit that Obama might just be wrong for once. It is ridiculous to even bring up such terms in this discussion as issues such as abortion, for Catholics, transcend party politics.
As for crying wolf, I am baffled. If Obama is so concerned about healthcare reform, why would he and his fellows risk the bill by refusing to remove abortion provision from its final draft? The president’s 100% rating with the NARAL and voting record on partial-birth abortion and post-natal health care speaks for itself; Obama has assembled the most pro-abortion administration in American history- and is therefore unsurprising in his actions towards health reform. See here for more evidence on Obama and abortion.
The Common Ground position is simply that some 50 million odd Americans have no proper healthcare coverage. Unlike NZ where we have thankfully have public healthcare, the US system largely relies on having private health insurance which is becoming increasingly unaffordable for many Americans.
The ‘common ground’ is not an excuse for Catholic turncoats like Ted Kennedy and Senator Tim Ryan to compromise Catholic moral teaching in regards to basic human rights, just so they can maintain popularity among the liberal elite. Although no one denies the need for health reform in America, it should not be done at the expense of another segment of society.
It is a very good thing that the Obama administration is trying to reform the US healthcare system to bring care to the sick currently denied it. The US Bishops have been calling for such reform for many decades and strongly support such reform.
Indeed, the U.S bishops have been calling for such reforms for many a decade and therefore the fact that the USCBC has withdrawn its support for the bill should speak volumes.
The Common Good requires that healthcare be provided to all – not just the wealthy.
Agreed, but as Bill Donahue pointed out, the bill in its current state funds abortion, ‘Which means that practicing Catholic non-white poor women will be forced to pay for the abortions of rich white women—women who equate abortion with a root canal.’ Hardly ‘common ground’?
Well done, US Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Yes, well done US Bishops. Too bad they don’t agree with you Chris.
If this reform is defeated, then the result will be even worse than the potential of destroying thousands of innocent lives.
It will be the actual destroying thousands of innocent lives.
The lives of many of those 50 million odd Americans currently without healthcare coverage.
What a load of nonsense, or are you really suggesting Chris that we save 50 million people at the expense of another 50 million people? The end justifies the means? And this is coming from the man who equated smacking with slavery and the death penalty. How distorted.
In any case, it is in fact the reversal of what you suggest. 50 million odd Americans currently living without healthcare coverage might potentially die. On the other hand, we know the millions of babies are being aborted on a daily basis. Abortion is legislated murder, an intended evil.
On a closing note, if America’s health reform fails, we’ll have Obama and his rapid pro-abortion polices to thank.
From Obama’s speech last Saturday:
God Bless
Sorry about the double posting, I dont know why that happened(in fact, maybe Admin could delete it or something). Also, I forgot to include my links:
This one on assisted suicide
Here’s Obama’s abortion record Mind you, this is just his post-election record, it doesnt even begin to account for his prior activities.
As I pointed out previosuly Chris, if Obama is so sure his bill excludes abortion why has every attempt to explicitly exclude it failed? Is Obama lying or just plain ignorant?
cheers
Also, Chris, in regards to #29, I don’t think I really need to point out the glaring contradictions in what you said. The quote, “Abortion will be covered as a benefit by one or more of the healthcare plans available to Americans, and I think it should be,” kinda says it all.
Filia,
Interesting post. I like, and agree with, the quote you’ve included about needing a social shift. That is, of course, how slavery (well, old-school forms of slavery anyway) was abolished; by getting people to care, mobilising those people, and getting them to force a change in policy. It wasn’t done by changing policy to force people to understand/care…
My question in all of this is, don’t governments do more than make laws about abortion? How can we continue, as Catholics, to say this is the only issue importance? So much so that that’s what you should vote on. It’s too simplistic, and too dangerous. You do that and you end up in situations where George W Bush at the helm.
I’m not saying it’s not of paramount importance, because I believe it is. But it’s not the only thing governments do, and it can’t be of paramount importance to them.
Veritas,
As I posted above, The Capps ammendment, passed by the house, mandates that the state won’t be funding any abortions as part of healthcare reform.
Obama’s always said that, and he’s doing just that.
God Bless
If the bill states that it will give cover to all medical procedures and abortion is a medical procedure then it too is covered surely.
Health Care, Fabrications and Religious Freedom
by Fr. Roger Landry – August 28, 2009
As we wrote about earlier this month, Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, on behalf of the U.S. Bishops, has specified two main areas of concern with respect to the health care reforms being proposed by the legislative and executive branches in Washington. The first is unequivocal assurance that abortions will not be covered. The second is that explicit inclusion of conscience protections so that health care providers will not have to participate in practices that violate the well-informed conscience of any nurse, doctor or pharmacist.
In the past few weeks, there have confirmations of these concerns on both scores.
On August 19, President Obama, speaking to the National Council of Churches, claimed that those who say that abortion will be covered in health care reforms are bearing false witness. He accused them of “fabrications” and “distractions” in order to “discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and religious obligation.”
If we look merely at the letter of the reform proposals, the President is correct: none of the proposals actually mention the word abortion. Abortion supporters, like the President, know that abortion is justly a dirty word, that most Americans would never accept having their tax dollars pay for others to end the lives of their innocent, unborn children. So much like abortion supporters at the United Nations, who speak euphemistically about abortion in terms of undefined “rights” to “reproductive health services” in order later to have a U.N. agency “interpret” that right to include abortion, so the President and various pro-abortion Congressional leaders have sought to pretend that abortion is not included, all the while introducing and maintaining vague language that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services or abortion-supporting activist judges can use to mandate abortion coverage.
When pro-life members of Congress have called the president’s and democratic leaders’ bluff by introducing amendments that would bar the coverage of abortions, the amendments have failed in both the House and the Senate. If there really were no intention of using the health care reforms to introduce access and coverage for abortions, why would these amendments — which would have confirmed the President’s assertions — not have passed?
It is the President and his abortion-supporting collaborators, not Cardinal Rigali and the Catholic bishops, who need to examine themselves on bearing false witness.
With regard to protections for the religious freedom of individuals and institutions, there is a portentous situation that has just come to light in Belmont, North Carolina. In 2007, Belmont Abbey College, a small, faithful Catholic institution linked to the Benedictine Belmont Abbey, discovered that its private health care policy for employees included coverage for abortion, contraception and voluntary sterilization. The college immediately eliminated those unethical provisions. “As a Roman Catholic institution,” president William Thierfelder said, “Belmont Abbey College is not able to and will not offer nor subsidize medical services that contradict the clear teaching of the Catholic Church.” Eight employees complained to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the decision to exclude prescription contraceptives discriminated against women. In March, the EEOC District Office in Charlotte sided with the college and closed the case without any finding of wrongdoing.
Earlier this month, however, the college received a letter from Reuben Daniels, Jr., director of the Charlotte EEOC District Office stating that the case has been reopened, that the college is in violation of federal law, and that if the college does not back down and achieve an acceptable compromise with the complainants, the EEOC will recommend court action. “By denying prescription contraception drugs,” Daniels wrote, the college “is discriminating based on gender since only females take oral prescription drugs. By denying coverage, men are not affected, only women.”
It’s true that only women are presently affected, because there aren’t prescription male contraceptives on the market, although some are being tested; what is totally clear, however, is that there is no intention to discriminate against women; if there were male contraceptives available, those would not be covered either. The purported discrimination is just a convenient ploy to force the College to cover contraceptives against its Catholic principles and the consciences of the monks and College leaders.
President Thierfelder says that he was told by local EEOC officials that the about face was dictated by Washington, which is something that makes the case both chilling and significant as we continue looking at the federal health care reforms and the absence of conscience protections.
“From a religious freedom standpoint,” Thierfielder commented in an article on lifesitenews.com, you don’t have religious freedom. … To try to make us change [our beliefs], there’s something very wrong with that. I think that’s why this has garnered so much attention, especially with the health care debates that are going on right now and with all the things that are going on with Catholic hospitals…. What they are basically saying is, ‘If you’re Catholic, or if you are of any faith, it doesn’t mean anything. You’re going to do what the government tells you to do.’”
As Patrick Reilly of the Cardinal Newman Society noted in an article about the situation in the Wall Street Journal, “That’s the rub: increasingly it is clear to Catholics and other religious groups that without very clear exemptions for religious employers — and conscience protections for individual doctors, nurses, pharmacists — federal health-care laws and guidelines could severely restrict religious freedom in the U.S.”
Reilly added that the issue is more than about contraception and a small Catholic College. “Perhaps there are those who would say that this is an issue for only a minority of religious people. Catholics are nearly alone in their objection to contraceptives — and many Catholics regularly violate the church’s teaching on the issue. But consider abortion. The EEOC says that pregnancy discrimination does not apply to an employer’s refusal to cover abortion expenses, ‘except where the life of the mother is endangered.’ When will a federal court argue that if insurance coverage to prevent pregnancy is, by inference, mandated by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, then why not abortion to end a pregnancy?”
Thierfelder acknowledged that the fight may end up in court and said that under no circumstances will the College do what is immoral no matter how much pressure the government puts on it to support a culture of death. “All of us need to have moral courage in today’s world,” he said. “We are so resolute in our commitment to the teachings of the Catholic Church that there is no possible way we would ever deviate from it, and if it came down to it, … we would close the school rather than give in. So it is absolute, unequivocal, impossible for us to go against the teachings of the Catholic Church in any way. There is no form of compromise that is possible.”
Reilly says that the EEOC’s persecution of Belmont Abbey College is a “bad omen for people of faith: … we can add the threat to religious liberty to the dangers already presented by government-run health care.”
Without clearly-defined conscience protections for individuals and institutions, health care reform can turn out to be a vehicle by which some in government agencies can force their immorality on those of us who, out of informed conscience, disagree with them.
Chris:”As I posted above, The Capps ammendment, passed by the house, mandates that the state won’t be funding any abortions as part of healthcare reform.”
Sorry Chris, but that’s not true, the Capps ammendment does allow abortion to be covered by the healthcare reform.
“When Rep. Pitts asked Committee Counsel about whether the amendment by Rep. Lois Capps would allow the secretary of health and human services (HHS) to cover abortion in the public plan, he was told it did.”
Until a healthcare reform bill contains a conscience protection clause and a clause that explicitly excludes the provision of state funding of abortion, then any reform is contrary to the Common Good and there can be no “Common Ground” whatsoever. Abortion is not negotiable, and we must never compromise on our opposition to the intentional destruction of human beings.
Pax
Chris,
As Lux et Veritas pointed out, this woolly idea that the amendment sponsored by Sen. Capps (a rabid pro-abortionist who received extensive funding from Planned Parenthood in his election campaign) is some-sort of ‘compromise’ is just outrageous; anyone reading the documentation can plainly see the not-so-inconspicuous agenda being employed by Obama and his acolytes. As you listed in your own post, the amendment stated that abortion would not be ‘required’ to be included in an insurance plan; hardly an exculsion. Also, Rep. Joe Pitts, according to the Catholic League, charged that the Section B of paragraph 4 of Capps’ bill (”At least one plan in every region must offer full abortion coverage; and one must not”) portrayed an initiative that “creates an accounting scheme by which taxpayer subsidies, called affordability credits, if you will, will go to plans to pay for elective abortion, both the public plan and private plans….” As the Catholic League pointed out, What really settles this issue is the question Pitts put to Counsel at the committee hearing: “If the Capps amendment is adopted, would the secretary of health and human services be allowed to cover elective abortions in the public plan?” Counsel: “Yes, sir.” Pitts: “So this is a sham?” Counsel: “Yes, sir, but…”. So what we have here is the American people putting their hopes in the Secretary of Health, Sen. Sebelius, who, suprise surpise, is a pro-abortion lap-dog tied to the intentions of President Obama.
In any case, Chris, it would seem by your line,
Obama’s always said that, and he’s doing just that.
, that you are incapable of seeing fault in Obama- you can’t resist white-washing his political and human rights history. The fact is that Obama has frequently made reference to his desire to see ‘reproductive services’ established as a key element to healthcare, such asPlanned Parenthood prior to the November election.
So what’s the deal? You often bandy around accusations of partisanship among the ‘Catholic Right’, and yet of all the posters on BK, it’s always Chris Sullivan that comes in unflinchingly and without fail to bat for those who would promote the culture of death.
Cheers and God bless
Chris,
Veritas refered to your oft quoted use of the term “catholic right ” What do you mean by this term ” would you call yourself ” catholic left”? who would you include in either catagory?
The Capps amendment is quite clear that it prohibits the use of any public funds for abortions.
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090730/hr3200_capps_1.pdf
God Bless
There’s a good summary of the reality of abortion funding and the healthcare bill at
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/07/john-boehner/boehner-says-democrats-health-care-plan-would-lead/
God Bless
A three-minute glance at the Catholics United website shows they’re united for one cause — the advancement of the Democratic party. That is their right, but they have been rallying behind pro-choice Catholics for the past several months — Sebellius, Kennedy, Sotamayor et alia.
Chris,
as Scribe ameliorated, Catholics United should not be an organisation that engenders feelings of reassurance. The fact is the Capps Amendment is nothing more than a sham, as I have previously pointed out. Politifact.com is right to the extent that will be no explicit, direct subsidisation of abortion. But as the NRL said, this will equate to nothing more than a symbolic bookkeeping; the Pitts quote in #41 says it all.
Abortions in the health-care bill, and everyone knows it except Catholics United.
Veritas,
You are correct that there will be no explicit, direct subsidisation of abortion.
I don’t see this as merely symbolic bookkeeping – the Capps ammendment mandates that state funds cannot be used to pay for abortions. If someone takes out a policy which includes abortions then they’ll have to pay for that abortion coverage with their own money and Capps prevents any state money being used to purchase abortion coverage.
There is no change there as currently Americans can take out a private health care policy which includes abortion cover.
If one is going to have a health care system based on health insurance, and one insists on consumers freedom of choice, and while Roe vs Wade remains law, the consequence is that Americans will continue to be able to purchase health insurance which includes coverage for abortions.
I don’t particularly trust Obama on abortion, because he is pro-choice, but it does seem to me that the Obama healthcare reform really does provide the very abortion neutrality which the Bishops asked for.
Obama is no fool and he knows what we know – that healthcare reform will not pass if it contains any sneaky provisions to fund abortion.
God Bless
Chris,
I can see where ‘book-keeping’ could be perceived as a bit vague, however I draw your attention to the ‘affordability credit’ clause of the Amendment, which would allow so-called private plans purchased with federal subsidies ‘affordability credits’ for low-income families and workers to cover abortion. A symbolic book-keeping in that there would not be a direct explicit segregation of funds to ‘reproductive services’ but rather a sly reallocation of funds via these ‘credits’.
This was the issue raised by Sen. Pitts when he asked charged the Amendment with portraying an initiative that “creates an accounting scheme by which taxpayer subsidies, called affordability credits, if you will, will go to plans to pay for elective abortion, both the public plan and private plans….” Pitts continued by putting to Counsel at the committee hearing this question: “If the Capps amendment is adopted, would the secretary of health and human services be allowed to cover elective abortions in the public plan?” to which the Counsel answered: “Yes, sir.” Pitts replied: “So this is a sham?” Counsel admits: “Yes, sir, but…”
It should also be noted that the Amendment makes it clear that abortions in the case of rape, incest and threat to the mother’s life must be provided and that the other 98% elective abortions would be left to the discretion of the secretary of Health (a comment I made earlier but might not have been clear enough), that is to say, up to wisdom of Sen. Kate Sebelius.
In any case, the Amendment is certainly not ‘abortion-neutral’ and if it were and abortion was excluded from the reform, then why are we seeing further attempts to specifically exclude the provision of abortion from the House Bill being vehemently opposed and defeated? Also, if Capps fulfils the abortion neutrality as required (at the least) by the U.S bishops, then why do they persist in their opposition to the Presdent?
See here for more indications from the Capps Amendment, the pro-life lobby and abortion-neutral, non-partisan think tanks, all confirming the presence of abortion in the healthcare reform bill.
Veritas,
The Capps amendment seems pretty clear that no public funds will be slyly diverted to purchase insurance covering abortions :-
Existing law already allows abortions in the case of rape, incest and threat to the mother’s life, and that’s a compromise most of the pro-life movement has been prepared to live with for a long time, so I don’t see this as any change from current provisions.
I think that the argument from Obama’s statement on reproductive services in your link is somewhat bogus, because it’s well established that reproductive services do not include abortion, no matter how much some parties might like to suggest that they do.
I certainly agree that the Pitts amendment and others to tighten up the law would have been much better, and I hope that such provisions will be included in the final law, but I don’t see HR3200 as amended by Capps to be the huge step backwards that some with an axe to grind against the Obama administration want us to see it.
I think that the political reality is that, should abortions actually be funded under this, then there will be laws passed to stop that, as already happened with the Hyde law stopping Medicaid funding of abortions. It’s well established that majority public opinion in the US is strongly against state funded elective abortions.
God Bless
Chris,
The Capps amendment seems pretty clear that no public funds will be slyly diverted to purchase insurance covering abortions …
K, here’s how Bob Moffit, from ‘the Heritage Foundation’, detailed how taxpayer funding for abortion survived the House Energy and Commerce mark up process:
So yes, the Capps amendment is slanted towards the Pro-Choice position; it is not ‘abortion-neutral’ which is why the U.S bishops will not support it, as won’t the pro-life caucus, both Republican and Democrat, in Congress. Furthermore, pro-choice senators throught Congress have been readily admitting it. Like Sen. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)for example. The Capps Amendment is desceptively conciliatory, but the pro-life movement in AMerica cannot afford to be dupped.
I think that the argument from Obama’s statement on reproductive services in your link is somewhat bogus, because it’s well established that reproductive services do not include abortion, no matter how much some parties might like to suggest that they do.
Chris, you’re at it again- you can’t resist white-washing Obama and his policies. ‘Well-established’?! By whom exactly, Chris Sullivan and Catholics United? The fact is that ‘reproductive rights’ have been confirmed by the President himself and his associates, Sen. Clinton included, to include abortion. It doesn’t get much clearer than that. I don’t see why your so adamant; Obama is simply living up to his record- at least he’s consistently extremist in his abortion views.
Veritas,
Sorry, but I don’t place much confidence in what the extremely right wing Heritage Foundation says.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Foundation
I’m much more interested in what the Capps amendment actually says than what the right wing are trying to claim it says.
The pro-life movement insists that the term “reproductive rights” does not include abortion, and we are right on that, despite what Hillary Clinton would like to think. The United Nations has defined that reproductive rights” does not include abortion.
God Bless