72 Responses to “Unhealthy healthcare”

1. 1 Chris Sullivan Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:23 pm

   From what I can tell, the healthcare bill does not fund abortions and Obama always said it would not fund abortions and confirmed that by an Executive Order which satisfied Stupak and other pro-life Democrats :-

   http://www.lifenews.com/nat6165.html

   US Catholic nuns, the US Catholic Healthcare Association (representing Catholic hospitals), editorials in the US National Catholic Reporter and Commonweal, and a bunch of Catholic healthcare experts who examined the bill, all concluded that the bill did not fund abortions.

   The health care bill that has been passed by the Senate and that will be voted on by the House will expand coverage to over 30 million uninsured Americans. While it is an imperfect measure, it is a crucial next step in realizing health care for all. It will invest in preventative care. It will bar insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It will make crucial investments in community health centers that largely serve poor women and children. And despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions. It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments – $250 million – in support of pregnant women. This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it.

   http://www.networklobby.org/press/3-17-10HealthcareSistersLetter.htm

   Peter Nixon saw passing the bill as an important pro-life victory:
   http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=7442

   As Jesus got before them, Stpuak and other Democrats who supported the healthcare bill now face death threats:

   http://www.newser.com/story/84123/death-threats-made-to-stupak-others-their-kids.html

   God Bless

2. 2 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:28 pm

   I see Chris is running diversion again.

   Here’s what Archbishop Charles Chaput said:

   DENVER, MARCH 24, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The archbishop of Denver is expressing disappointment regarding the health care legislation moving through Congress, and the so-called Catholic groups that are supporting it in opposition to the U.S. bishops.

   Archbishop Charles Chaput stated this in a column, titled “A Bad Bill and How We Got it,” written for publication today in the Denver Catholic Register.

   “As current federal health-care legislation moves forward toward law, we need to draw several lessons from events of the last weeks and months,” he pointed out.

   “The bill passed by the House on March 21 is a failure of decent lawmaking,” the prelate asserted. “It remains unethical and defective on all of the issues pressed by the U.S. bishops and prolife groups for the past seven months.”

   He added that “the Executive Order promised by the White House to ban the use of federal funds for abortion does not solve the many problems with the bill, which is why the bishops did not — and still do not – see it as a real solution.”

   U.S. President Barack Obama promised to issue an Executive Order today that would affirm existing law prohibiting federal funding of abortions, a deal which some have claimed was simply a negotiation technique to gain more votes for the health care bill.

   The archbishop also pointed out that “Executive Orders can be rescinded or reinterpreted at any time.”

   Ill will

   “Some current congressional leaders have already shown a pattern of evasion, ill will and obstinacy on the moral issues involved in this legislation, and the track record of the White House in keeping its promises regarding abortion-related issues does not inspire confidence,” he added.

   “The fact that congressional leaders granted this one modest and inadequate concession only at the last moment, and only to force the passage of this deeply flawed bill, should give no one comfort,” Archbishop Chaput stated.

   He asserted that “the combination of pressure and disinformation used to break the prolife witness on this bill among Democratic members of Congress — despite the strong resistance to this legislation that continues among American voters — should put an end to any talk by Washington leaders about serving the common good or seeking common ground.”

   “At many points over the past seven months,” the prelate affirmed, “congressional leaders could have resolved the serious moral issues inherent in this legislation.”

   “They did not,” he stated. “No shower of reassuring words now can wash away that fact.”

   He then took aim at the groups that claim to be Catholic but defied the bishops’ clear stance that the bill could not be supported.

   The archbishop stated that in this matter “self-described ‘Catholic’ groups have done a serious disservice to justice, to the Church, and to the ethical needs of the American people by undercutting the leadership and witness of their own bishops.”

   Disappointing

   He continued: “For groups like Catholics United, this is unsurprising. In their effect, if not in formal intent, such groups exist to advance the interests of a particular political spectrum.

   “Nor is it newsworthy from an organization like Network, which — whatever the nature of its good work — has rarely shown much enthusiasm for a definition of ’social justice’ that includes the rights of the unborn child.”

   “But the actions of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) in providing a deliberate public counter-message to the bishops were both surprising and profoundly disappointing; and also genuinely damaging,” Archbishop Chaput stated.

   He explained: “In the crucial final days of debate on health-care legislation, CHA lobbyists worked directly against the efforts of the American bishops in their approach to members of Congress.

   “The bad law we now likely face, we owe in part to the efforts of the Catholic Health Association and similar ‘Catholic’ organizations.”

   The prelate acknowledged the “many thousands of ordinary, faithful Catholics, from both political parties,” who “have worked hard over the past seven months to advance sensible, legitimate health-care reform.”

   “If that effort seems to have failed, faithful Catholics don’t bear the blame,” he said. “That responsibility lies elsewhere.”

   The archbishop expressed gratitude to everyone “who has worked so hard on this issue out of love for God’s people and fidelity to their Catholic faith,” affirming that no matter what happens, “that kind of effort is never wasted.”

   Now that’s clarity.

3. 3 bamac Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:29 pm

   As it was explained on an American TV channel , the bill was passed by Congress ( of which 136 members are Catholics and of which group 127 voted for the bill ) Obama can say what he likes but his words will not change the draft or effect of the bill if passed ,

   Shalom

4. 4 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:31 pm

   US Catholic nuns, the US Catholic Healthcare Association (representing Catholic hospitals), editorials in the US National Catholic Reporter and Commonweal, and a bunch of Catholic healthcare experts who examined the bill, all concluded that the bill did not fund abortions.

   Well, I trust NONE of those groups.

   Riddle me this, Chris. If the bill didn’t fund abortion, why was the executive order required?

   Hint: The answer is glaringly obvious.

5. 5 John Jensen Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:32 pm

   This writer argues that, in addition to the undoubted fact that it will fund abortions – of course it will, Chris; abortions are everyone’s right now – in addition to that sad fact is that it continues to use the means of health insurance – not major medical disaster insurance, but health insurance – as the provision for medical services:

   The Gordian Knot Untied

6. 6 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:38 pm

   Hi James,

   Here are some of the important facts about the Obama health care legislation…

   1. It does provide federal funding for abortions, and this will result in a huge increase in actually abortions.

   2. The presidential executive order which supposedly bans federal funding of abortions, does not actually have any binding power to prevent federal funding of abortions, only an official amendment from the US Congress can do this.

   This isn’t just speculation, this is the official and unanimous view of congressional law and abortion jurisprudence experts in the US, and the experts used by the US Catholic Bishop’s Conference on congressional issues.

   3. Just hours after the passing of this legislation, the head of Planned Parenthood (the largest provider of abortions in the US) released a public statement praising the new law, and calling the executive order nothing more than ’symbolic gesture’.

   4. The US Catholic Bishops Conference, who support subsidized health care, were opposed to the Obama version of it, and they still continue to remain staunchly opposed to the new legislation, calling it ‘profoundly flawed’.
   http://familylifenz.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/us-bishops-call-health-care-law-deeply-flawed-ask-catholics-to-remain-vigilant/

   Their opposition isn’t just about the abortion funding, but also about the lack of conscience protections and issues around its treatment of migrant communities.

   5. If Bart Stupak hadn’t caved at the last minute then the Stupak Amendment would have provided a legally binding piece of legislation that would have guaranteed no federal funding of abortions.

   6. The US Catholic Bishops have publicly chastised several of the so-called ‘Catholic’ lobby groups that Chris Sullivan has referenced in his post, because of their misrepresentation of the Obama health care legislation.

   Remember, the US Catholic Bishops Conference SUPPORTS subsidized health care.

   Brendan Malone
   Family Life International NZ

7. 7 Chris Sullivan Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:44 pm

   Abp Chpaut gives not a single shred of evidence to support the claim that this bill funds abortions. He’d do better to stop kicking kids of lesbian parents out of Catholic schools in his diocese.

   And neither has anyone else produced any such evidence.

   I know. I’ve read the wild claims that it funds abortion but have yet to find any evidence to back them up.

   It is all speculation and worry about what MIGHT happen IF other very unlikely things happen.

   So what if the Executive Order could be rescinded later ?

   Any bill, including this one, could also be rescinded later by the politicians.

   Yawn.

   God Bless

8. 8 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:50 pm

   Abp Chpaut gives not a single shred of evidence to support the claim that this bill funds abortions. He’d do better to stop kicking kids of lesbian parents out of Catholic schools in his diocese.

   Stop obfuscating Chris.

   I’ll repeat my question: If the bill didn’t fund abortion, why was the executive order required?

   Simple question.

9. 9 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:55 pm

   This is from the entire US bishops’ conference, Chris. Are you going to disparage the entire conference like you have Archbishop Chaput?

   WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) – Less than an hour before the President of the United States signed the Senate version of Health Care Reform into law, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, through their President, Cardinal Francis George, issued the following release:

   From The Catholic Bishops of the United States:

   “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. Christian discipleship means, “working to ensure that all people have access to what makes them fully human and fosters their human dignity” (United States Catechism for Adults, page 454). Included among those elements is the provision of necessary and appropriate health care.

   “For too long, this question has gone unaddressed in our country. Often, while many had access to excellent medical treatment, millions of others including expectant mothers, struggling families or those with serious medical or physical problems were left unable to afford the care they needed. As Catholic bishops, we have expressed our support for efforts to address this national and societal shortcoming.

   “We have spoken for the poorest and most defenseless among us. 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.

   “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. The statute appropriates billions of dollars in new funding without explicitly prohibiting the use of these funds for abortion, and it provides federal subsidies for health plans covering elective abortions.

   “Its failure to preserve the legal status quo that has regulated the government´s relation to abortion, as did the original bill adopted by the House of Representatives last November, could undermine what has been the law of our land for decades and threatens the consensus of the majority of Americans: that federal funds not be used for abortions or plans that cover abortions. Stranger still, the statute forces all those who choose federally subsidized plans that cover abortion to pay for other peoples´ abortions with their own funds. If this new law is intended to prevent people from being complicit in the abortions of others, it is at war with itself.

   “We share fully the admirable intention of President Obama expressed in his pending Executive Order, where he states, “it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.” However, the fact that an Executive Order is necessary to clarify the legislation points to deficiencies in the statute itself. We do not understand how an Executive Order, no matter how well intentioned, can substitute for statutory provisions.

   “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.

   “Many in Congress and the Administration, as well as individuals and groups in the Catholic community, have repeatedly insisted that there is no federal funding for abortion in this statute and that strong conscience protection has been assured. Analyses that are being published separately show this not to be the case, which is why we oppose it in its current form. We and many others will follow the government´s implementation of health care reform and will work to ensure that Congress and the Administration live up to the claims that have contributed to its passage. We believe, finally, that new legislation to address its deficiencies will almost certainly be required.

   “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.

   “As bishops of the Catholic Church, we speak in the name of the Church and for the Catholic faith itself. The Catholic faith is not a partisan agenda, and we take this opportunity to recommit ourselves to working for health care which truly and fully safeguards the life, dignity, conscience and health of all, from the child in the womb to those in their last days on earth.”

   Source: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35918

10. 10 Chris Sullivan Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    Actually, Planned parenthood are opposed to the anti-choice provisions in the Obama healthcare bill.

    While we celebrate the passage of health care reform, we’re going to need your help to fix the damage caused by the Nelson amendment. If left intact, the Nelson amendment would be the most severe restriction on private health insurance coverage for abortion in 35 years.

    http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/healthreform/

    Planned Parenthood go on here to complain about how pro-life the new healthcare bill is and why they think it needs radical fixing to meet their pro-abortion agenda.

    http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/healthreform/683.htm

    God Bless

11. 11 Chris Sullivan Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Scribe,

    The USCCB, which now appears to be led by the nose by Right Wing extremist bishops like Chaput, made a prudential decision to oppose the bill.

    Bishops Conferences, of course, can err in making prudential decisions on the impact of particular bills, especially one as complicated and controversial as this one was.

    The Catholic Healthcare Association and the main body representing Catholic nuns, the ones who actually work in healthcare ministering to the sick and suffering, came to a different prudential judgement on the bill, namely, that it did NOT expand state funding of abortion.

    Which is precisely what Obama always promised about the bill.

    I’m still waiting for any actual PROOF that the bill does state fund abortions.

    God Bless

12. 12 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    I’m sorry Chris, but you are just plain wrong about this bill.

    It seems to me that your misunderstandings regarding this matter stem from an unwillingness to separate the issue of abortion funding from the issue of subsidized health care.

    I support subsidized health care, and believe that it is part of any state’s obligation to it’s citizens, but at the same time I know that preventing the killing of unborn babies has to take priority over my support for subsidized health care.

    I suspect that you are refusing to come out against this piece of legislation because:

    a)you are afraid that it will give the wrong impression that you oppose ALL subsidized health care

    b) You have been a previously strong supporter of Obama, and you worry that opposing this health care bill will give people the impression that you no longer strongly support Barack Obama and his government.

13. 13 James the Least Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:25 pm

    Hi everyone,

    Thanks for your comments so far. I’m a little bit clearer, but still a bit fuzzy on the public funding of abortions bit. BTM/Scribe – isn’t this just a yes/no question? Does it, or doesn’t it fund elective abortions?

    Where are the analyses the USCCB referring to?

    And Chris, consider yourself on notice. I don’t want this debate descending into uncharitable name-calling. Your opinions of Archbishop Chaput can be expressed a number of ways that don’t call him a “Right Wing extremist.”. You should know by now that I’m not a fan of the whole “Right Wing/Left Wing” malarkey, so you’re on thin ice labelling bishops in that way.

    Play the ball, not the man.

    Also, so I’m clear, the Catholic Healthcare Association – what connection do they have the Church? Are they an official agency, or just a group of doctors who are Catholic?

14. 14 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    Actually, Planned parenthood are opposed to the anti-choice provisions in the Obama healthcare bill.

    Chris,

    You have googled a document and then not read it properly, so here is the statement from Planned Parenthood about the health care legislation, in it’s full, unedited form (the bold emphasis is mine):

    ————————————————————-
    “Today is a truly historic day for the American people who have long demanded affordable, quality health care coverage.

    “For more than a year, Planned Parenthood has worked tirelessly for a health care reform bill that would fix our broken health care system, strengthen women’s health, and achieve quality, affordable health care for all Americans. Today, monumental progress was made toward achieving these goals with the passage of historic health care reform legislation by the U.S. House of Representatives, despite a symbolic gesture, in the form of an Executive Order, to anti-choice Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI), which has diverted attention from the central goal of health care reform — controlling costs and extending coverage.

    “As a trusted health care provider to millions of women and families across the country, Planned Parenthood applauds the fact that this legislation would extend health care coverage, including family planning, to tens of millions of women and families, guarantee access to affordable life-saving screenings for cervical and breast cancer and other serious health problems, protect women against gender discrimination by private insurers, end the practice of dropping coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and significantly increase access to reproductive health care. The proposal also includes a commonsense provision to expand family planning under Medicaid, which would significantly increase access to essential preventive health care for millions of women.

    “As a result of this historic expansion of health care coverage to more than 30 million Americans, the doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals who work for Planned Parenthood health centers will be providing care to many more women, men, and families who will be seeking primary and preventive care.

    “Planned Parenthood is also extremely pleased that members of the House listened to the millions of women and men who expressed their strong opposition to the Stupak abortion ban. Stopping the Stupak ban was a high priority for women across the country who rejected the notion that they would not be able to even use their own money to obtain private insurance coverage for abortion. It was a tough fight, but we salute Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D- CA), Congressman Rosa DeLauro (D–CT) , members of the House Pro-Choice Caucus, and all others who stood up for women’s health and women’s rights.

    “Nonetheless, we regret that a pro-choice president of a pro-choice nation was forced to sign an Executive Order that further codifies the proposed anti-choice language in the health care reform bill, originally proposed by Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. What the president’s executive order did not do is include the complete and total ban on private health insurance coverage for abortion that Congressman Bart Stupak (D–MI) had insisted upon. So while we regret that this proposed Executive Order has given the imprimatur of the president to Senator Nelson’s language, it is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban.

    “This is a historic day for American people. We regret that a gesture to Congressman Stupak has diverted the nation’s focus from this bill’s accomplishments, including the extension of family planning to millions of women.”

    ————————————————————-

    One of the most important lines in that statement from Planned Parenthood is that the new Obama health care legislation will “significantly increase access to reproductive health care”.

    ‘Reproductive health care’ is the terminology used by Planned Parenthood to refer to abortion.

15. 15 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    James,

    Yes, this new legislation does create a framework of public funding for abortion.

    I’m not sure if this statement from Richard Doerflinger, one of the representatives of the US Bishops on Congressional issues, helps to clarify things any further…

    “One proposal to address the serious problem in the Senate health care bill on abortion funding, specifically the direct appropriating of new funds that bypass the Hyde amendment, is to have the President issue an executive order against using these funds for abortion. Unfortunately, this proposal does not begin to address the problem, which arises from decades of federal appellate rulings that apply the principles of Roe v. Wade to federal health legislation. According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding. That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year. The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unamimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation.”

16. 16 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:45 pm

    Also, the following video might give some clearer insight into the the dodgy dealings of the US NETWORK group (the small group of dissenting nuns), and the US Catholic Healthcare Association which is headed by a religious sister:

    Also, the following letter from the US Bishop’s Conference rep exposes just how small the NETWORK group of religious sisters actually is:

    “A recent letter from Network, a social justice lobby of sisters, grossly overstated whom they represent in a letter to Congress that was also released to media.

    Network’s letter, about health care reform, was signed by a few dozen people, and despite what Network said, they do not come anywhere near representing 59,000 American sisters.

    The letter had 55 signatories, some individuals, some groups of three to five persons. One endorser signed twice.

    There are 793 religious communities in the United States.

    The math is clear. Network is far off the mark.

    The letter had 55 signatories, some individuals, some groups of three to five persons. One endorser signed twice.

    There are 793 religious communities in the United States.

    The math is clear. Network is far off the mark.

    Sister Mary Ann Walsh
    Director of Media Relations
    United States Conference of Catholic Bishops”

17. 17 Chris Sullivan Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    BTM,

    I support this bill largely because I have yet to see any hard proof that it actually funds abortions. I’ve read lots and lots of claims that it MIGHT fund abortion. But no proof.

    All the claims that it funds abortion seem to me to be “worst possible case” scare scenarios, often pushed by Republican politicians who oppose the bill because they oppose universal healthcare and want to use this issue to deal a political blow to Obama.

    ‘Reproductive health care’ is also the terminology used by Planned Parenthood to refer to any form of healthcare related to reproduction.

    That’s why it is called reproductive health care.

    It is well established (eg in the UN) that the term ‘Reproductive health care’ does NOT include abortion, although it would include licit methods of spacing children (eg NFP) and contraception (whose state funding I do not have a problem with).

    In the USA, having a baby in hospital costs about US$20,000. This healthcare bill is a very pro-life initiative because it will allow many more women facing crisis pregnancies to afford to pay their hospital bills in giving birth. That can be expected to help reduce abortions.

    It is true that in many respects the healthcare bill is less than ideal.

    But it does seem that one the whole it is a step forward for those currently denied healthcare in the USA.

    Some private healthcare insurance plans in the USA already cover abortion, so the continuation of that does not represent any movement in a pro-choice direction.

    God Bless

18. 18 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Here’s a report quoting Bart Stupak, the congressman who had crafted an amendment during the first round of negotiations to ensure abortion funding wasn’t part of the bill.

    This is a couple of weeks before the bill passed after he and other Democrats believed Obama’s executive order would alleviate their concerns. [emphasis mine]

    “We want see a bill. But the bill that they [White House] are using as a vehicle is the Senate bill,” Stupak said. “You would find in there the federal government would directly subsidize abortions, plus every enrollee in the Office of Personnel management plan, every enrollee has to pay a minimum of $1 per month toward reproductive rights which includes abortion.”

    “Give us our language. Let’s keep current law: No public funding for abortion.”

19. 19 Chris Sullivan Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    Stupak points out the brazen hypocrisy of those who supposed Geroge Bush’s stem cell Executive Order but are now calling Stupak a traitor because of the Obama healthcare Executive Order :

    “The [National] Right to Life and the bishops, in 2007 when George Bush signed the executive order on embryonic stem cell research, they all applauded the executive order,” Stupak said in an interview with The Daily Caller.

    “The Democratic Congress passed [a bill] saying we’ll do embryonic stem cell research. Bush vetoed it in 2007. That same day he issued an executive order saying we will not do it, and all these groups applauded that he protected life,” Stupak said.

    “So now President Obama’s going to sign an executive order protecting life and everyone’s condemning it. The hypocrisy is great,” he said.

    http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/23/stupak-says-catholic-bishops-pro-life-groups-tried-to-use-abortion-to-defeat-health-bill/

    God Bless

20. 20 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    All the claims that it funds abortion seem to me to be “worst possible case” scare scenarios

    Apologies for weaving slightly off topic, James, but this comment struck me as highly ironic coming from someone who operated on the absolute worst possible case scare scenario when it came to the Waihopai incident.

    He drank the Kool-Aid from his peacenik mates that people in Blenheim were calling the Abu Ghraib folks and telling them who to torture.

    Take the blinkers off, Chris.

21. 21 Chris Sullivan Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    BTM,

    The NETWORK statement supporting the Obama Healthcare Bill and pointing out that it does NOT fund abortions was signed by Marlene Weisenbeck, President of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious which represents 59,000 US nuns.

    The minority group representing only 10,000 US nuns opposed the bill.

    God Bless

22. 22 Chris Sullivan Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    Still waiting for any proof that the healthcare bill actually does fund abortions …

    God Bless

23. 23 bamac Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    Chris,

    It seems that, to you, Obama can do nothing wrong and the Vatican and Holy Father cando nothing right.

    shalom

24. 24 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    Chris,

    The difference between Bush and 2007 is that there was no bill signed on ESCR. Hence the executive order carried weight.

    There was a healthcare bill signed last week, and any challenges on this issue will be looked at in terms of the legislation’s language, not the executive order.

25. 25 fishe Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    So, in sum, the President has signed an executive order stipulating that public funds can not be used for abortions. And the legislation doesn’t interfere with the already existing laws of the use of federal funds for abortions. Seems as closed as a case could be.

    Like Chris implies, how is any opinion to the contrary not just Republican scare tactics along the lines of “OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST”

    Move on now shall we to all the other issues of the health care reform?

26. 26 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    Still waiting for any proof that the healthcare bill actually does fund abortions

    So you won’t take Stupak’s word for it, either?

27. 27 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Move on now shall we to all the other issues of the health care reform?

    Well, fishe, those who’ve been aborted won’t have much use for health care, will they?

    And, as I’ve mentioned, the EO carries little or no weight against a 2400-page piece of legislation if challenged in the courts.

28. 28 Chris Sullivan Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    Scribe,

    Stupak was satisfied that the bill actually passed, with the Executive Order, did not increase funding of abortions.

    The pro-life movement has been holding up Stupak as a noble Catholic pro-life politician for a year now. Stupak has fought the good fight valiantly to make sure the healthcare bill does not fund abortions.

    His pro-life credentials are rock solid.

    Fishe is onto it – what is really going on here is simply Republican Party hostility to Obama.

    That’s why my comment about the political leanings of certain US Catholic bishops is very much to the point here.

    God Bless

29. 29 James the Least Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    I’m still confused.

    So…the bill doesn’t specifically fund abortions, but due to some court stuff, it doesn’t expressly rule it out…so…a door is left open?

    And Chris, don’t kid yourself – when the FPA says “reproductive health” they include abortion. EVERYONE knows that!

30. 30 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:30 pm

    The pro-life movement has been holding up Stupak as a noble Catholic pro-life politician for a year now. Stupak has fought the good fight valiantly to make sure the healthcare bill does not fund abortions.

    Yes, he did brilliantly well back in November to get his amendment into the House bill. As outlined above, though, in #18, he admits that the Senate version that was coming back to the House for a vote earlier this month DID publicly fund abortion.

    He seems to have sincerely believed that the executive order was adequate, but lawyers and other legal experts disagree.

    It would have been great if he’d held out to get his House amendment into the final version of the bill. If he and his fellow pro-life Democrats had held out, it wouldn’t have passed. The leadership would have had to cave, because not passing health care was not an option.

    I can’t imagine the pressure Stupak was under from Nancy Pelosi. He probably now knows how Ashraf Choudhary felt when he was voting on prostitution reform, coming under the whip of a social ultra-liberal to pass legislation pleasing to the feminist leader. A Muslim abstaining on an issue like selling sex is absurd.

31. 31 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    From Cardinal George, president of the USCCB [emphases mine]:

    Notwithstanding the denials and explanations of its supporters, and unlike the bill approved by the House of Representatives in November, the Senate bill deliberately excludes the language of the Hyde amendment. It expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures. In so doing, it forces all of us to become involved in an act that profoundly violates the conscience of many, the deliberate destruction of unwanted members of the human family still waiting to be born.

    What do the bishops find so deeply disturbing about the Senate bill? The points at issue can be summarized briefly. The status quo in federal abortion policy, as reflected in the Hyde Amendment, excludes abortion from all health insurance plans receiving federal subsidies. In the Senate bill, there is the provision that only one of the proposed multi-state plans will not cover elective abortions – all other plans (including other multi-state plans) can do so, and receive federal tax credits. This means that individuals or families in complex medical circumstances will likely be forced to choose and contribute to an insurance plan that funds abortions in order to meet their particular health needs.

    Further, 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. As the bill is written, the new funds it appropriates over the next five years, for Community Health Centers for example (Sec. 10503), will be available by statute for elective abortions, even though the present regulations do conform to the Hyde amendment. Regulations, however, can be changed at will, unless they are governed by statute.

    Additionally, no provision in the Senate bill incorporates the longstanding and widely supported protection for conscience regarding abortion as found in the Hyde/Weldon amendment. Moreover, neither the House nor Senate bill contains meaningful conscience protection outside the abortion context. Any final bill, to be fair to all, must retain the accommodation of the full range of religious and moral objections in the provision of health insurance and services that are contained in current law, for both individuals and institutions.

    What makes Cardinal George’s comments wrong, Chris?

32. 32 Chris Sullivan Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:35 pm

    Here is the Executive Order:

    ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (approved March __, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

    Section 1. Policy.
    Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“the Act”), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors—Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers—are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

    The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

    Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

    Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

    I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act’s segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act’s segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

    Section 3. Community Health Center Program.
    The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

    Section 4. General Provisions.
    (a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
    (b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

    THE WHITE HOUSE,

    It is a plain as day that this bill does not fund abortions, that Hyde remains in place and that the Community Health Centers will not be funded to do abortions.

    Obama has kept his promise not to fund abortions.

    This is a pro life victory Guys !

    God Bless

33. 33 Chris Sullivan Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    What makes Cardinal George’s comments wrong, Chris?

    The obvious lack of any proof to back up his assertions.

    Saying that the bill funds abortions does not make it so.

    God Bless

34. 34 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    It is a plain as day that this bill does not fund abortions, that Hyde remains in place and that the Community Health Centers will not be funded to do abortions.

    All these politicians, typically the least trustworthy people in all of society, claim they don’t want to publicly fund abortion. Well, why didn’t they put it into the legislation, then?

    What’s the over/under on weeks until someone challenges this executive order?

35. 35 Chris Sullivan Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    Scribe,

    As usual, you have it the wrong way around.

    The bill did not introduce any funding of abortion.

    The onus is on those opposed to the bill to PROOVE that it does fund abortions.

    We’re still waiting for any such proof.

    God Bless

36. 36 James the Least Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    Hang on: Scribe/BTM – is the opposition because this bill doesn’t expressly exclude abortion, or that it funds it? Coz those are two very separate things.

    If it is the former, then that’s a shame, but nowhere near as bad as the latter…surely?

37. 37 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 2:54 pm

    It is well established (eg in the UN) that the term ‘Reproductive health care’ does NOT include abortion

    WRONG.

    It is actually well established fact that whenever the UN lobby groups, NGOs, and others, use the term ‘reproductive health’ they are referring to abortion.

    “Marlene Weisenbeck, President of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious which represents 59,000 US nuns.”

    WRONG.

    “Network’s letter, about health care reform, was signed by a few dozen people, and despite what Network said, they do not come anywhere near representing 59,000 American sisters.

    The letter had 55 signatories, some individuals, some groups of three to five persons. One endorser signed twice.

    There are 793 religious communities in the United States.

    The math is clear. Network is far off the mark.

    Sister Mary Ann Walsh
    Director of Media Relations
    United States Conference of Catholic Bishops”

38. 38 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    “is the opposition because this bill doesn’t expressly exclude abortion, or that it funds it?”

    The basic gist is this – the opposition to this bill stems from the fact that it now makes it legal to fund abortions in the US using public money.

    The mechanics of how the bill does this are actually irrelevant, which is where Chris has become confused, what is important is the fact that it changes existing US laws to allow the door for tax funded abortions.

    This will result in the biggest expansion of abortion since Roe V. Wade.

    A similar problem arose during the 1970’s when the US government enacted new laws about medicaid funding, and in order to stop tax dollars from being used to fund abortions, the Hyde Amendment had to be introduced into US law.

39. 39 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    James,

    From Cardinal George

    the Senate bill deliberately excludes the language of the Hyde amendment. It expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures. In so doing, it forces all of us to become involved in an act that profoundly violates the conscience of many, the deliberate destruction of unwanted members of the human family still waiting to be born.

    And Stupak said

    “You would find in there the federal government would directly subsidize abortions, plus every enrollee in the Office of Personnel management plan, every enrollee has to pay a minimum of $1 per month toward reproductive rights which includes abortion.”

40. 40 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    A helpful thing for people with uncertainties about this issue might be to stop and consider the fact that the head of the largest abortion provider in the USA came out and endorsed the bill just hours after it was passed into law, and she made the following statement about it:

    “As a trusted health care provider to millions of women and families across the country, Planned Parenthood applauds the fact that this legislation would… significantly increase access to reproductive health care.”

41. 41 Chris Sullivan Mar 29th, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    The mechanics of how the bill does this are actually irrelevant

    Translation : We still can’t prove our claims that this bill opens the door to fund abortions.

    The Hyde law still applies and IF further legislation is needed to close any supposed gaps that MIGHT appear, then the prolife forces in the house have the numbers to do that. The anti-abortion movement has much more political clout in the US today than we had in 1970.

    God Bless

42. 42 JoyfulPapist Mar 29th, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the current law in New Zealand prohibit abortion except for rape, incest, mental subnormality, or serious danger to the life of the woman? And hasn’t that been interpreted very broadly?

    Has the President defined what he means by ‘to save the life of the mother’? If she says: ‘I’ll kill myself if I don’t get an abortion’, does that qualify?

43. 43 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    Oh, and let’s not forget that the US Bishops are NOT opposed to subsidized health care, their problem is with the fact that Obama has managed to package abortion expanding legislation with health care legislation, thus using the health reform bill as a cover for furthering a pro-abortion agenda.

    As Scribe rightly points out – if Obama definitely did not support tax dollars funding abortions, and if he wanted to ensure this never happened, then he would have supported an amendment, which is the only way of providing a binding guarantee that this will never happen.

    Make no mistake about it, this whole legislation has been carefully stage-managed by Obama and his Democrat support team to achieve two of their key pre-election promises – state funded health care and increased support for abortion.

    Remember, Obama spoke at a Planned Parenthood gathering before he was elected, and this is the exact transcript from the question and answer session after his speech…

    Brian Howard: Um, you know that rights and access and rights and ability have to go hand in hand. Um, and we know that health care reform is an important part of your agenda. Could you talk—and give us some specifics about how reproductive health care and women’s health care is going to fit into and be a part of primary care for women in your health care reform plans and how Planned Parenthood, as a safety net provider, will continue to be a part of the health care safety net for women and families across the country.

    Senator Obama: Well, look, in my mind reproductive care is essential care, basic care so it is at the center, the heart of the plan that I propose. For those of you that are interested in the details, not plugging my website, [laughter] feel free to go to BarackObama.com.

    But, essentially, what we are doing is to say that we’re going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It’ll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services, as well as mental health services and disease management services. [scattered applause]
    

    http://sites.google.com/site/lauraetch/barackobamabeforeplannedparenthoodaction

44. 44 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    JP,

    Abortion is illegal in New Zealand, but there are exemptions for a few reasons.

    And I think you’re on the right track with Obama’s comments. Why didn’t the bill just include the Hyde amendment language?

    Be vague and let the chips fall where they may.

45. 45 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    “The Hyde law still applies”

    The Hyde Amendment does NOT apply to the new Obama health care bill.

    It applies ONLY to the specific issue of the 1976 law change regarding Medicaid funding of abortions.

46. 46 Chris Sullivan Mar 29th, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    BTM,

    So Obama gave a speech in favour of reproductive care.

    So what ?

    The Catholic Church is in favour of reproductive care.

    So he’s in favour of all essential services.

    Isn’t everyone ? Elective abortion is not essential and it ain’t even healthcare.

    God Bless

47. 47 Scribe Mar 29th, 2010 at 4:09 pm

    Naive, table for one.

48. 48 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    “The Catholic Church is in favour of reproductive care.”

    She isn’t in favour of the kind of ‘reproductive care’ that Obama was referring to.

    Remember, he wasn’t addressing an OB/GYN conference, he was speaking to the largest provider of abortion in the US when he made that statement.

49. 49 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    Here is the actual video of that section of the Planned Parenthood speech that Obama gave:

    It also includes a clip of Hilary Clinton stating that for the Obama administration, reproductive care includes abortion.

50. 50 bamac Mar 29th, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    BTM,

    Thankyou for the video…. Hilary Clinton has answered Chris’s uncertainty … American Reproductive Health segment of the Health Bill DOES include abortion for sure.

    Shalom

51. 51 the blue nun Mar 29th, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    JP: technically, yes abortion is illegal in NZ in general. But it is legal in case of rape, incest etc or risk of serious medical or psychologial damage to either the mother or the baby. Surely I’m not the only one who finds it odd that death is considered more beneficial for the health of a child than something like downs syndrome? And the reality is that something like 98% of NZ abortions are done under the guise of “mothers mental health” despite studies which show that maternal mental health is at least as bad (if not worse) after an abortion that if she completes the unwanted pregnancy. But we work on a system of precedence, if its been done once and considered legal then its legal the next time.

    The term Reproductive care is interesting. While it should mean things like prenatal checks and making sure pregnancies go well, usually in a medical context it means abortion, contraception, sterilisation and STI prevention. Abortion is obviously bad and as for the other 3, well abstinence and monogomy still have better success rates than anything the medical system can offer. I guess IVF is included in reproductive care too, but we wouldn’t use that so much if we didn’t insist on messing up the hormones of our female population for the 1st 10-20 years of their reproductive life. And having seen some of these procedures theres very little “care involved”. IVF is brutal, painful and potentially dangerous (not to mention the moral issues).

    The issue of who is supporting what….
    The Catholic Health association is from what I can see on their website, a collection of supposedly catholic healthcare organisations. Its not Catholic doctors, but catholic hospitals…which may or may not actually be run by Catholics. It doesn’t really clarify who they actually represent.

    The Catholic Medical association (CMA) who represent Catholic Drs in the USA released this press statement:

    s the Democrat party accelerates efforts to enact comprehensive health-care legislation before the Easter recess, the Catholic Health Association, leaders of women’s religious orders, and academics at Catholic institutions have endorsed Senate bill H.R. 3590 and called for the House of Representatives to pass this bill as-is. In so doing, they have intentionally and publicly contradicted the policy position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

    The Catholic Medical Association (CMA) agrees with the conclusion of Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M., that these groups “have done a grave disservice to the American Catholic community by undermining the leadership of the nation’s Catholic bishops, sowing confusion among faithful Catholics, and misleading legislators through their support of the Senate bill.” Should this political ploy prove successful in persuading some legislators to vote for this flawed bill, these individuals and groups will have done a grave disservice to human dignity and to the common good of this nation.

    Senate bill H.R. 3590 is a substantially flawed and unacceptable piece of legislation. Its policy positions on abortion and conscience rights alone warrant rejecting the entire bill. The evidence is clear that:

    The Stupak amendment is absolutely essential if massive new funding of abortion is to be prevented;
    Governmental subsidies for abortion increase the abortion rate;
    Senate bill H.R. 3590 provides multiple new streams of funding for abortion;
    Key proponents of abortion, including President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Henry Waxman and Kathleen Sebelius, specifically reject the Stupak amendment and understand that Senate bill H.R. 3590 effectively circumvents its provisions;
    Senate bill H.R. 3590 does not include the most fundamental conscience rights protection under current law – the Hyde-Weldon amendment’s protection against being coerced to participate in abortion by a governmental entity;
    Senate bill H.R. 3590 requires all enrollees in health insurance plans covering abortion to pay, separately and exclusively, for abortions obtained by other plan participants.
    Given this evidence above, it is difficult to understand how some Catholics could lobby in favor of such legislation. Given the significance of the issues at stake, and the consistent, compelling policy guidance provided by the U.S. bishops on these matters, publicly opposing and/or undermining the U.S. bishops at this time is imprudent and uncharitable.

    The CMA holds that there are multiple other serious failings in the health-care legislation and legislative process of the last year. To name only three:

    Senate and House legislation relies heavily on the federal government to dictate solutions for the real problems in U.S. health-care financing and delivery, an approach that is flawed in principle and ineffective, if not dangerous, in practice. Such an approach would violate the principle of subsidiarity further undermine the physician-patient relationship, and represent a failure to learn from the ongoing systemic problems affecting Medicare and Medicaid.
    Senate bill H.R. 3590 refuses to make any advance in effecting a more just and constructive solution to the health care access challenges faced by immigrants.
    The current legislative approach is unsustainable from an economic standpoint. Enacting it would represent not only poor stewardship, but an injustice to future generations.
    Given the considerations presented above, the Catholic Medical Association calls upon all Catholics, particularly those who have recently lobbied publicly in favor of H.R. 3590, to demonstrate unity and charity in opposing the central flaws in current legislation and in working together to achieve authentic health-care reform in a timely manner.

    Founded in 1932, the Catholic Medical Association is the largest association of Catholic physicians in North America. CMA represents more that 1,400 national-level medical professionals and many more Catholic physicians and health care providers at the local level. For more information, go to http://www.cathmed.org.

    As for the issue of which religious sisters support what….
    The LCWR is the largest group of sisters…but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are faithful to Rome…this is from their website:

    On March 10, 2009, J Lora Dambroski, OSF, as president of LCWR, received a letter from Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), informing her that CDF decided to initiate a doctrinal assessment of LCWR.

    The letter refers back to the 2001 meeting in Rome of the LCWR officers with the CDF staff and notes that LCWR was invited at that time “to report on the initiatives taken or planned by your Conference to promote the reception of the Church’s teaching among your member communities, especially on issues such as the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, the Declaration of this Congregation Dominus Jesus, and the problem of homosexuality.” The letter goes on to state that “Given both the tenor and the doctrinal content of various addresses given at the annual assemblies of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious in the intervening years, this Dicastery can only conclude that the problems which had motivated its request in 2001 continue to be present.”

    The CMSWR on the otherhand is full of religious communities who are growing in number, most (if not all) are habited (some have suggested that in the US this is how you tell how whether they belong to the CMSWR or the LCWR). Part of the reason they split from the LCWR was that they felt the LCWR was not faithful to the Catholic faith. The CMSWR includes groups like the Sisters of Life, Missionaries of Charity, Servants of the Lord and the Virgin of Matara, the Dominican sisters etc.
    Their president Mother Mary Quentin shes an amazing woman full of gumption (and I would NOT like to get into a fight with her!) who happens to be the head of a community of Mercy sisters (Religious sisters of Mercy of Alma) who for the most part are doctors. Shes a very intelligent woman and also very compassionate. She and the CMSWR have issued this statement:

    n a March 15 statement, Cardinal Francis George, OMI, of Chicago, president
    of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, spoke on behalf of the United
    States Bishops in opposition to the Senate’s version of the health care legislation
    under consideration because of its expansion of abortion funding and its lack of
    adequate provision for conscience protection. Recent statements from groups like
    Network, the Catholic Health Association and the Leadership Conference of
    Women Religious (LCWR) directly oppose the Catholic Church’s position on
    critical issues of health care reform.

    The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious, the second conference of
    Major Superiors of Women Religious in the United States, finds the provision of
    the bill to include expansion of abortion funding and fails to include conscience
    protection. We believe the bill needs to include the Hyde Amendment as passed by
    the House in November.

    Protection of life and freedom of conscience are central to morally responsible
    judgment. We join the bishops in seeking ethically sound legislation.

    So the summary as far as I can tell is:
    Yes they needed health care reform, but this isn’t the way to do it.
    By letting this bill in there will now be no way to go back and get real reform. If this bill hadn’t passed the issue of abortion etc could’ve been sorted properly instead of being given a symbolic gesture, Immigrants might’be been able to get some rights to health care etc.

    But now that the law has passed, there’s no way of going back. Immigrants are stuffed and millions more babies will die. Oh, and its still all done through insurance which people have to pay for. Well done America ??

52. 52 Don the Kiwi Mar 29th, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    There were organisations of Unfaithful Catholics – some of which Chris mentions above(whom he seems to support) who gave their backing to this bad sad excremental piece of legislation in the US.

    The president of Planned Parenthood (often called Murder Inc. in the USA) Cecile Richards thanked all the nuns who helped get the pro-abortion version of Obamacare passed into law.
    She says:
    ” …..and in the final days before the bill was passed it was the Roman Catholic nuns who most importantly broke with the bishops and the Vatican to announce their support for healthcare reform. This brave and important move demonstrating they cared more about the health care of families in America than they did about the church hierarchy was a critical demonstration of support. Bart Stupak may not ask the nuns for advice as he recently announced to the press, but maybe next time he should.”

    Sort of sums it up really. Unfaithful Catholics are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents.

    Make no mistake – Reproductive Healthcare means Abortion, Contraception and Sterilisation in American politico-speak.

    These “faithful” nuns – like Sr. Donna Quinn who actually assists in an abortion mill – and many others like her put themselves in judgement.

    Necks, Millstones, cast into the sea………comes to mind.

53. 53 JJS Mar 29th, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    I intend to attend the tridiuum this year for the first time in many years. Would someone please explain to me why this thread is entirely about abortion. Thirty million people, thirty f***ing million people stand to benefit from this bill, and that only in the short term. Abortion exists in the U.S. in the current set up. My God, can’t you people see that something good has been done, and done for good reasons?

54. 54 the blue nun Mar 29th, 2010 at 9:05 pm

    Hi JJS: I agree, theres more at stake than the abortion issue. This is my take on it…

    Nobody is saying that they didn’t need reform, quite obviously it was/is one of the worst health care systems in the developed world.
    But the way they’ve done it isn’t the best. And by settling for less than the best they’ve given themselves something much less than what they deserve. And they’ve limited their ability to change things in the future.

    The new system means that you still have to get health insurance to get care. They still have to pay, and the care will presumably still be limited. They could’ve brought something better in a bit slower and made it more viable long term.

    Aside from the Catholic teaching on abortion, abortion is a hugely emotive and political topic in the USA. Part of the problem I think (but may well be wrong) is that pro-life drs and pro-life hospitals may be forced to perform abortions (in direct violation of what most countries would consider to be their rights). The other issue is that money individuals are being forced to pay for health care insurance would be funding abortions. So any pro-lifers will have fewer options for insurance if they don’t want to support abortions.

    Abortion does already exist in the current set up, but as I understand it the government isn’t paying for them.

    Baisicly if they hadn’t signed this bill something would’ve been done in the near future because once the issue is brought up they can’t just ignore it. But potentially another bill could’ve been passed which protects the unborn child, protects immigrants and doesn’t make people pay for their health care (they’ve still got to pay, not as much, but they’re still paying)

    So yeah, maybe its better than what it was (other than the abortion issue), but its not as good as what it should/could be.

    Does that make it clearer?

55. 55 JoyfulPapist Mar 29th, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    I know I’m terribly insular, but I haven’t paid much attention to the talk about the bill, apart from noting that it seems to leave out people who are residents but not citizens, and that there has been a debate about whether or not it would provide funding for abortion.

    But if I understand what I have read, the Catholic bishops are very much focused on these two issues in their comments. They also say that passing this bill will prevent the development of a better bill, and that near enough shouldn’t be good enough.

    Are they right? I don’t know. But the fact that the bill isn’t going into effect until 2014 doesn’t sound like anyone – on either side of the argument – is very serious about the people who stand to benefit – that’s four years away, for crying out loud!

    Despite all the posts on this thread, I’m still where James was at the start – I can see that it is good to have health care for those who can’t afford it. Surely that’s a no brainer? But paid by a publicly funded insurance? The NZ experiment with ACC shows it is such a good model, right? Yeah, right! (Let me just warn you not to get me started on ACC.) And not accessible to resident immigrants? And not to be put in place at all for four years?

    And this is the best the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave can do for their people?

    No, I’m struggling to see how this is something to celebrate.

56. 56 JJS Mar 29th, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    Blue nun, thanks for your response. I think the U.S is trapped between two impossible positions. The Republicans, who are right on abortion, are un-christian on other social issues. The democrats are wrong on abortion, but are better on social justice.
    In terms of what is possible in the U.S this bill represents a massive improvement.
    Abortion is hugely important, I know that, but if it comes to dominate and exclude all other issues then everyone is worse off.

57. 57 JoyfulPapist Mar 29th, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    I trust you enjoy the Triduum, JJS. The Easter Vigil is my favourite service of the whole year. This morning when I went to Mass the local school was celebrating Palm Sunday (so that the children whose parents don’t take them to Church didn’t miss out). It did mean Father was able to recycle yesterday’s sermon for today, and it was lovely to see how intent they were. I also enjoyed their singing.

    And I was pleased to see the statues and crucifix draped in purple. I’d written an article for our local newsletter about the reasons why this is traditional – nice to know the liturgy committee are thinking along the same lines.

58. 58 JJS Mar 29th, 2010 at 9:22 pm

    J. Papist, I think it is something to celebrate. In a country dominated by the cruel ‘realism’ of the political right wing, this is a significant step forward in terms of social justice. It’s riddled with flaws but we have to compare it with what it replaces not our ideal

59. 59 JJS Mar 29th, 2010 at 9:28 pm

    Thanks J.P, I do look forward to it. I have decided to re-engage with the church, though I admit there are things I disagree with. It will be an interesting journey!

60. 60 Don the Kiwi Mar 29th, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    JJS

    …….in the US this bill represents a massive improvement

    Actually , its only a marginal improvement at best.
    The figure of 32 million Americans being deprived of healthcare is actually wrong – its a politically motivted misrepresentation. They are deprived of Health Insurance – not healthcare. There is a basic healthcare available to the poor, but admittedly, there are about 7 million who miss out completely.

    I suggest you go to http://www.the-american-catholic.com and chech out the recent posts concerning health care. A guy by the name of Don McClarey – a lawyer – has made quite a study of the Obamacare bill and his analysis is very enlightening.

    As mentioned in some of the above comments, this bill removes individual rights of medical practitioners, insurance companies and excludes resident aliens and goes against US law and the Constitution. I understand that several states are going to enact laws to withdraw from the scheme – like Massachussetts, which already has its own virtually identical scheme.

    This is not over – not by a long shot. And the cost of the scheme could well be the nail in the coffing of the American economy – it is massively expensive.

61. 61 JJS Mar 29th, 2010 at 9:49 pm

    Thanks Don, I will check out the American Catholic link.

    There is a basic healthcare available to the poor, but admittedly, there are about 7 million who miss out completely.

    That’s true but my goodness it is basic. Beneath the standards of a civilized nation with a christian heritage.

62. 62 the blue nun Mar 29th, 2010 at 10:09 pm

    Yeah, the level of care is pretty shocking for the lower socio-economic groups in the US at the moment. But its hard to convince the rest that they should give up their amazingly excessive over-priced, over-investigated health care system for the sake of those less fortunate.

    JP: please please please can we do the ACC debate? I personally think that while its (hugely) flawed its better than what most places have.

    Massachussetts have had their system of compulsory insurance for a while, and it sounds like it works well (admittedly I heard that at Senator Kennedy’s funeral procession, so probably it was a biased opinion)

    JJS: Doesn’t it suck that the abortion and social justice issues are on different sides of the political spectrum. It would make me very very confused about which way to vote.

63. 63 muerk Mar 29th, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    JJS – I have the same problem as you. The Republicans want a health care system that means that the poor don’t get treated. Obviously this leads to preventable deaths. This is clearly evil. Yet the Democrats want to have publicly funded abortion on demand. I couldn’t vote for either party.

    For me, leaving health care up to market forces is just wicked. It’s fine if you have a good job that covers you for private insurance, but what happens if you get chronically ill and lose that job? You also lose the health insurance. Pre-existing conditions won’t be covered, so for people with known conditions like diabetes, they just often can’t get good coverage. The most vulnerable members of society just aren’t able to access quality health care.

    Clearly America needs to enshrine health care as a basic human right and find a way to cover everyone. The problem arises when our definitions of “health care” clash. I see abortion as the antithesis of health care, yet Planned Parenthood and many other people see abortion as part of basic health care for women.

    What I don’t understand is why the Democrats were so determined to include abortion. Had they just genuinely and openly shown that publicly funded abortion was not going to happen then they could have put through life saving health care reforms so easily.

64. 64 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    “I think the U.S is trapped between two impossible positions. The Republicans, who are right on abortion, are un-christian on other social issues. The democrats are wrong on abortion, but are better on social justice.”

    This is actually a false dichotomy – because any party that supports the killing of innocent human beings, and then tries to pass itself off as being a party of social justice doesn’t know the first thing about social justice.

    I agree, the Republicans do have an average track record on social justice issues, but so do the Democrats – they may support good policies for helping the poor, but at the same time they also support the killing of defenceless members of their own society.

    “In terms of what is possible in the U.S this bill represents a massive improvement.”

    An improvement for who – the thousands of innocent human beings who will be killed thanks to its passing?

    You seem to be suggesting that the ends justify the means – ‘as long as we get some form of health care passed in the USA, then does it really matter if thousands of innocent babies get killed in the process, as long as we got that free health care, right?’

    The whole underlying philosophy of any authentic health care is bring about the betterment and saving of human lives, not to save some and kill others.

    “Abortion is hugely important, I know that, but if it comes to dominate and exclude all other issues then everyone is worse off.”

    Deliberately killing another innocent human being is one of the worst acts we can engage in.

    Deliberately killing thousands, and thousands, and thousands of innocent human beings, in state sanctioned facilities, is a heinous act of serious injustice.

    Abortion isn’t just hugely important, it is the Holocaust of our era.

    I wonder whether the Catholics who supported this bill would be so happy to sign their name to it if it created a legal framework which allowed tax payer money to be used to fund gas chambers for use on people who live in third world countries.

65. 65 muerk Mar 29th, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    Oh, and I’m keen on ACC too

66. 66 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    “What I don’t understand is why the Democrats were so determined to include abortion. Had they just genuinely and openly shown that publicly funded abortion was not going to happen then they could have put through life saving health care reforms so easily.”

    Exactly right Muerk!

    Part of the problem here is that many people don’t seem to be aware of Obama’s history when it comes to issues like abortion, and the staunch support that he has shown for extreme pro-abortion politics from the very outset of his career.

    In fact, Obama supports pro-abortion policies that even the Clintons were not supportive of, which should give some idea as to where is ideological support lies.

    If you don’t understand Obama’s commitment to this issue, then this health care debate can seem a bit overblown, but once you place it in the context of Obama’s political commitments and work, you quickly see how it is not simply a bill about health care (something he has also long supported), it is also a bill designed to further his pro-abortion aims.

    Obama is a very clever politician – in the worst use of that term – and some people still don’t seem to be wise to that fact, so they fail to see when they are being finessed by him.

67. 67 muerk Mar 29th, 2010 at 10:35 pm

    Deliberately killing another innocent human being is one of the worst acts we can engage in.

    This is true. But this also includes deliberately maintaining a system where a certain number of people will die because of lack of treatment. The previous American system ensured that thousands of people died or were disabled due to preventable illness simply because they were too poor to pay. Americans have a moral duty to create a system where that doesn’t happen anymore, just as much as a moral duty to stop abortion.

    Death by abortion or death by treatable cancer – either way it’s murder.

68. 68 muerk Mar 29th, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    I agree BTM. I think Obama showed his true colours when he described pregnancy as a “punishment” he didn’t want to inflict on his daughters. To describe his own grandchild as a punishment made me go cold.

69. 69 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    I think the biggest problem here is the false dichotomy that some people have fallen into regarding health care.

    The false dichotomy is this – you either have no funding of abortion and miss out on all health care, or you have health care that includes funding of abortion.

    This is a totally false dichotomy, because in actual fact there is another option that Obama and the Democrats would have easily passed into law, health care without abortion funding.

    This whole sorry scenario has probably finally proved what many of us have suspected for some time – the Democrats are the abortion party.

    I would suggest that their longstanding relationship with Catholicism has, for all intents and purposes, probably come to an end with this issue.

    It seems to me, from the statements I am reading from the US Bishops, is that the majority of them have now awoken to the fact that you simply can’t trust politicians on either side of the house.

70. 70 BTM Mar 29th, 2010 at 10:58 pm

    “Death by abortion or death by treatable cancer – either way it’s murder.”

    Muerk, I hear what you are saying, but actually these two things aren’t the same.

    Abortion is an act of murder, and as such it is a sin of commission, while death from treatable cancer in a flawed health system is death caused by failure to act, which is a sin of omission.

    The key difference here is the issue of not providing subsidized health care – which is not actually an intrinsically evil act, whereas murder is always an intrinsic evil.

    There can be legitimate reasons why a country would choose not to provide subsidized health care (genuinely might not be able to afford it, or they might be a small country without poverty, or they might opt for another system altogether like tax rebates for impoverished people’s health insurance) , but there are never any legitimate reasons for a country to legalize murder.

    This doesn’t excuse any lack of action to reduce unnecessary death, it’s just to say that doing nothing while someone dies, while it may be unjust, isn’t an act of murder, but deliberately killing someone is.

71. 71 JoyfulPapist Mar 30th, 2010 at 9:52 am

    The ACC example is surprisingly on topic – a magnificent dream, half implemented (the original concept was to broaden it to cover health), and then gutted by successive governments committed to an insurance model rather than a health model. Still works pretty well for 90% of cases where people have common injuries that resolve within a normal timeframe. Sucks for those with long-term injuries, particularly unusual injuries where ACC-paid doctors might be able to argue natural causes.

    I totally support the original idea. I still believe that covering 90% pretty well is better than the American insurance model. But for the remaining 10% we’ve replaced the American litigation model with our very own – not injurer vs plaintiff, but ACC vs plaintiff. Not good.

    Given how flawed ACC is despite the grandeur of the initial dream, and given the American healthcare package (from what I can see, in any case) is much more flawed at the outset, what are the chances it will deliver?

72. 72 muerk Mar 30th, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    I see what you are saying BTM, but in America’s case they CAN afford subsidised health care to make sure that vulnerable people don’t die or are disabled. I agree with you that this isn’t an inherent evil, as you say, some countries can’t afford quality health care – although perhaps they could if their leaders and officials weren’t corrupt and they instituted a rule of law that would encourage investment and economic growth. Africa for example has huge resources that could create wealth that are frittered away by corruption, war and bad management.

    But America is not Africa, it chooses to leave people to die from treatable diseases when it has the resources available to care for them. The health infrastructure is there, the personnel are there, all America needs is a commitment to equitable access for all people.

    But as you say, abortion is the fly in the ointment. I can’t understand why, given the stakes for people who are dying and disabled due to the current system, the Democrats clung to abortion.