The American Catholic bishops sent a bulletin to parishes this weekend, urging Catholics to oppose the abortion funding provisions in the current version of the health-care.
Unfortunately, Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, promptly endorsed the current bill: “As I watched our president present his plan to pass the health reform legislation, it was clear this is an historic opportunity to make great improvements in the lives of so many Americans.”
Even if she thought the Senate version of the bill doesn’t actually fund abortions—a dubious proposition—she would have to admit that Stupak’s amendment is an improvement. For what possible reason would she undercut the bishops—who generally favor major health-care reform—and the efforts of Stupak at this point in the process?
March 14th, 2010 | 7:47 pm
Time to cut the ‘Catholic’ Health Assoc. loose. ‘Sr.’ Keehan should have been cut loose a while ago.
March 14th, 2010 | 9:05 pm
Sister must not have been present for the ethics class which covered Abortion as a clear-cut case of Murder. As we continue to pray for the innocent Unborn, we shall pray that she may recognize the folly of her errors.///////
March 14th, 2010 | 9:06 pm
I’ve posted it in the Comments on other blogs that are running this story and I’ll post it here to make as many as possible aware of the difference:
Would that more attention were paid to the practitioners who make up the Catholic Medical Association and less to the business interests represented by the “Catholic Health Association”. See, for example, their Overview on health care reform.
March 14th, 2010 | 9:13 pm
Sr. Carol’s nearly 7-figure job is to lobby for the financial interest of CHA-member hospitals. They want more from more paying customers than they have to give up in reduced medicare reimbursements. They figure the Senate Bill gets them that. It really is that simple – the ‘Catholic’ in their name is useful farce.
March 14th, 2010 | 10:46 pm
The bishops deserve to be undercut on this for a different reason. They are, of course totally right about opposing the abortion-funding provisions. What is troubling is that they would happily support the whole bill if it weren’t for that and the lack of conscience protection.
Other than that, they think this huge slouch toward socialism is a good thing. They seem totally oblivious to the huge new life issue that would be spawned by any form of this bill, especially in the hands of those who are proposing it. Federally-encouraged (and funded, probably) euthanasia will quickly become fiscally necessary and a societal norm. And, in the bargain, abortion funding will happen, regardless of what this bill says.
It seems like when the bishops speak about economic realities, they come off woefully ignorant. And whatever else it is, health care is an economic entity. The result is always an unbalanced, utopian scheme proffered without regard to unintended consequences. For every problem such schemes would solve, 3 others would be created.
Blind guides!
Oh, by the way, sister Carol should be undercut first.
March 14th, 2010 | 10:57 pm
is sister Carol related to Nancy Pelosi?
just another ‘catholic” feminist nun? Yes cut them loose from the CHA>
March 14th, 2010 | 11:54 pm
Why has sister Keehan acted this way?
Perhaps because she understands that
1) the proposed reform bill does not fund abortions. See David Gibson’s article at Politics Daily: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/11/the-senate-bill-funds-abortions-nope-and-its-more-pro-life-th/
2) health care reform would decrease the number of abortions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html
March 15th, 2010 | 7:30 am
Sister Keehan was on EWTN’s World over Live with Judie Brown on Aug. 19, 2009.
She was absolutely horrible then. She is a “Progressive” like no other. They have infiltrated the “Church” and the country. We need to root all of them out of both, the Church and the country.
March 15th, 2010 | 10:58 am
I agree that the “Catholic” Bishops are all for the progression towards a socialist America. After all, look what socialism has done to the Church in Europe; it is practically nonexistent. The Bishops know this for a fact, yet continue on their merry ways. The Bishops, as a whole, with very few exceptions, are phonies. They have given up on the mission of the Church and have thrown in with the politicians. No wonder so many have left–I for one many years ago.
March 15th, 2010 | 12:56 pm
William: “I agree that the “Catholic” Bishops are all for the progression towards a socialist America. After all, look what socialism has done to the Church in Europe; it is practically nonexistent. The Bishops know this for a fact, yet continue on their merry ways. The Bishops, as a whole, with very few exceptions, are phonies. They have given up on the mission of the Church and have thrown in with the politicians. No wonder so many have left–I for one many years ago.”
Pretty lousy reason to leave the Church. If the Church is what it says it is, there is no reason to leave. If it isn’t, then that’s your reason. Bad bishops, no excuse. If Jesus had His Judas, we can deal with bad bishops.
March 15th, 2010 | 1:12 pm
“Why has sister Keehan acted this way?
Perhaps because she understands that
1) the proposed reform bill does not fund abortions. See David Gibson’s article at Politics Daily: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/11/the-senate-bill-funds-abortions-nope-and-its-more-pro-life-th/
2) health care reform would decrease the number of abortions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html”
If those claims are true, why don’t the Democrats just allow the Stupak Amendment into the Senate Bill? Why was the Amendment opposed by the House leadership?
I keep hearing those types of claims, but the actions of the Democratic leadership indicate that the Stupak Amendment would negate something that is very important to them.
March 15th, 2010 | 7:13 pm
I am convinced that these bishops will never get the message until people vote wtih their pocketbooks. The bishops have essentially used the generosity of parishioners to fund the mischief. They set the goals for each parish and essentially include whatever programs they want. I personally do not participate in this appeal and reserve my financial support for the parish alone.
I believe that the bishops policies are in large measure responsible for politicians who vote for abortion by supporting so many of the other progressive elements of their agenda. A kind of deadly moral equivalence.
March 16th, 2010 | 12:53 am
Brian English asked: “If those claims are true, why don’t the Democrats just allow the Stupak Amendment into the Senate Bill?”
What the pro-choice side fears is that the Stupak ammendment would lead not just to barring fedral funds from abortion, but to the shaping of a health insurance market where no insurance companies would offer abortion coverage at all, even for people not receiving any form of public assistance. The government regulated insurance exchanges would quickly become the largest share of the health insurance market, and the Stupak amendment would restrict any plan that covers abortion from participating in these exchanges. Insurance companies would drop abortion coverage from all of their plans to make them eligible for inclusion in the exchanges, thus preventing people from purchasing abortion coverage with their own money. The Senate bill is an attempt to restrict federal dollars from paying for abortion without this side effect.
Both the pro-life and the pro-choice lawmakers have stated that for purposes of trying to craft health reform we should try to negate the abortion issue by maintaining the status quo on abortion. The pro-choice side believes fervently, and probably correctly, that the Stupak amendment is a de facto increase to restrictions on abortion from where they are now.
Further evidence that the Senate bill does not permit abortion funding:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=7280#more-7280
March 16th, 2010 | 1:17 am
Devon–If your claim is accurate: how dare we restrict insurance coverage of abortion? How dare anyone consider that? The money I pay my health insurance company better go towards induced abortions, because the less of those welfare babies, the less I will have to pay for their health! More term pregnancies mean higher premiums! Terminate them and we will all be more prosperous! Plus my chances of taking someone home from the bar to have intercourse will be higher if they know I have abortion coverage! You have clearly shown that Stupak is blocking the American Freakonomic way and must be stopped.
March 16th, 2010 | 8:38 am
“The pro-choice side believes fervently, and probably correctly, that the Stupak amendment is a de facto increase to restrictions on abortion from where they are now.”
Devon, you can’t have it both ways. You claim Democrats are concerned that the Stupak Amendment would restrict abortion rights (God forbid), but you also cite Professor Jost, who actually claims there is no real difference between the House Bill and the Senate Bill.
Even if you accept Jost’s argument (I don’t), the only things preventing HHS funding of abortion under the Senate Bill are administrative regulations from the 70s. Administrative regulations are easily changed, so they are not a real obstacle.
The only way to be sure abortion funding is barred under a healthcare bill is to have the restriction passed by Congress. The House Bill has that restriction, the Senate Bill does not. The Senate Bill must be defeated.
March 16th, 2010 | 11:08 am
Brian,
The Senate bill would require that at least one insurance plan that covers abortion be included in the exchange, so it addresses their concerns that no plans would be availble. Still, many analysts, having had some time to think through the implications of the Senate’s approach, have concluded that the Senate plan will still cause a reduction in people enrolled in plans covering abortion. This is because it will require a conscious act of spending more money to purchase the coverage (with monthly reminders in the form of separate premium payments). This is why many abortion rights organizations so vociferously opposed the Senate language when it was first proposed and have subsequently complained about it.
I too am for greater restrictions on abortion, but I also think that the agreement that the pro-choice and pro-life sides came to about health care (to maintain the status quo) is moral and should be honored.
From a pro-life perspective I think the increased funding for pre-natal and maternity care has to weigh into our decision. That will have definite impact on reducing abortions. To me that outweighs the possibility that federal bureaucrats will be able to change regulations that will open up small loopholes for abortion funding. Even if they succeed, these changes will only last for one or two election cycles. The care offered to poor expectant mothers will have a dramatic and long term impact on the abortion it rate; it will save many lives.
March 16th, 2010 | 1:32 pm
“To me that outweighs the possibility that federal bureaucrats will be able to change regulations that will open up small loopholes for abortion funding. Even if they succeed, these changes will only last for one or two election cycles. The care offered to poor expectant mothers will have a dramatic and long term impact on the abortion it rate; it will save many lives.”
The regulations promulgated by administrative agencies implement legislation. With the pro-abortion zealots in the present administration, the loopholes opened will be anything but small.
Improved healthcare for pregnant women is important, but it should not come at this price. In addition, I do not think either bill is actually going to deliver it.
With regard to the Senate Bill saving lives if it is passed, I hope you are right, but I think you will find you are very wrong.
March 16th, 2010 | 4:17 pm
[...] UPDATE: Creative Minority Report agrees with me. So does First Things. [...]
March 18th, 2010 | 7:05 am
[...] the wake of the endorsement of the current health-reform bill by Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, Archbishop Chaput of Denver [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact