If you’re a Catholic and you believe the Catechism implicitly then you believe that health care is a right and you’re inclined to support a bill that expands access to health care. You are inclined to hate the skyrocketing costs fueled by lawsuits. You see the scandal of the uninsured as one of the great injustices of our day. It makes you angry that health problems lock people into jobs that aren’t otherwise in their interest.
You have practically memorized Catechism No. 2211: “The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially, in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits.” (Emphasis added ... by your Catholic conscience.)
But the health care bill before Congress right now falls afoul of that Catechism directive in two fundamental ways:
1. Paying for abortion doesn’t honor or benefit the family. (It also violates the Ten Commandments, but we’re only focused on Catechism No. 2211 for the moment.)
There is a silly argument being made that the bill in Congress doesn’t really pay for abortions. Mother Jones goes so far as to say the “pay for abortions” part of the bill is just a typo.
That argument goes nowhere fast:
a. If it were a typo, it would be evidence that the bill hasn’t gone through the processes it should. Thorough, appropriate markup and amendments address such issues. Absent that, it should be voted down and done properly.
b. And even if this were a typo, the bill still is what it is.
The U.S. bishops have done us the service of pointing out that the bill does in fact fund abortions.
And besides, why would Bart Stupak be stubbornly opposing a bill that he likes on pro-life grounds and why would he and his wife be enduring a “living hell” over a typo?
As my own Kanas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann points out: “To believe that President Obama and/or the Senate and House leadership will correct these abortion issues at a later date is foolish. They are the ones responsible for making members of Congress accept government funding of abortion as an integral part of so-called health care reform. President Obama has gone back on many of his campaign promises, but has been scrupulously faithful in his promises to Planned Parenthood and others in the abortion industry to advance their agenda.”
2. U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s proposed method of passing health care reform is not “in keeping with the country’s institutions.”
Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution tells us how a bill is supposed to pass: “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it”; and, (2) “in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.”
Tony Blankley points out that the Supreme Court only recently reiterated that what the Constitution says here still counts, in Clinton v. New York City, 1998.
But the current bill can’t pass. And so, says the Wall Street Journal: “at the Speaker’s command, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter, who chairs the House Rules Committee, may insert what’s known as a ‘self-executing rule,’ also known as a ‘hereby rule.’ Under this amazing procedural ruse, the House would then vote only once on the reconciliation corrections, but not on the underlying Senate bill. If those reconciliation corrections pass, the self-executing rule would say that the Senate bill is presumptively approved by the House—even without a formal up-or-down vote on the actual words of the Senate bill.”
By insisting that this massive bill pass without 60 votes in the Senate and without a real up and down vote in the House, current leaders in Washington seem to be more wedded to their agenda than they are to the constitution.
Should a Catechism Catholic really care about procedural laws in his desire to defeat the devil who denies health care access to people? Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons would answer: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide?”
As the bill gets handed over from the desk of Barack Obama to the desk of Kathleen Sebelius at Health and Human Services, I’m confident there will develop even more reasons to oppose it from the Catechism. We forget that a bill isn’t just the original language — it’s the execution and application by the relevant agency, which is directed by appointees of the new administration, in this case an avowedly pro-abortion administration.
Here’s Archbishop Naumann’s column taking on Congress and raising questions about the Catholic Health Association.
And here is a site that helps you find contact information for your own Congressional office. Make sure they know you want them to vote the Catechism.
Archbishop Naumann also recommends looking up some swing states. Ask their U.S. Representatives to represent the U.S.
Comments
Post a Comment
I agree with your points, Tom, and would add some of my own. It seems that many (most?) people conflate health care with health insurance. My understanding is that it’s already true that no one is denied health care in this country. Health insurance is another matter. Basically everyone seems to agree that people should have access to health care. The disagreement is over “how”. I worry when the bishops (or any Catholic group) weigh in heavily on prudential matters over which they have no particular expertise or spiritual gifts - such as education, housing, gun control, health insurance, etc. Unlike abortion, euthanasia, “gay marriage”, embryonic stem cell research - all of which are clear matters of black and white morality – the disagreements over these other matters (health insurance, etc) are not about the fundamental goal, but over how to obtain that goal. In addition to the reasons you already stated (which are more than enough), I oppose the approach of the Obama administration on socio-economic grounds. We already have much of what he is promising in Massachusetts and our premiums are now the highest in the country. Premiums are skyrocketing. There are better ways to resolve these issues. And people are dancing around the real problems, in my opinion. (I have been in the insurance business for 25 years and my educational background is in economics). I’ll outline some of those below.
I believe there are several reasons for the excessively high cost of health insurance - and the excessive cost plays a very significant role in keeping those of modest means from purchasing it themselves:
1) We need to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. Increase competition.
2) Governments need to stop controlling/mandating the specific coverages so tightly. All of these good intentions – wanting everyone to have everything covered – drive costs through the roof.
3) Individuals need to have greater direct contact with their premiums. Right now, many (if not most) people have the vast majority of their premiums paid either by their employers and/or taken out of their pay like taxes. As a result, they don’t always have a solid idea of how much is really being paid for their insurance. More direct involvement (sending out a monthly check, for example) will tend to lead to more control/awareness.
4) As we have more disposable income as a people, we have generally realized that having “stuff” isn’t really very important without being healthy. We want to live — well and long. And so, demand along with technology has provided amazing advancements that allow us to live longer and more actively than in the past. This is great, but it’s naturally expensive. We want the very best, the latest technology, etc. That comes with a cost. And it’s a decision we have said “yes” to, so far with our dollars. It’s not right or wrong, it’s a value judgment/decision.
5) Co-pays and deductibles should be considerably higher than the typical $20. That would drive the consumer to be much more discerning about whether or not a trip to the doctor/prescription is really necessary. The lack of economic pain they feel right now leads people to over-use the system.
6) Health insurance has mutated into something it was never designed to be. We actually *expect* to use it. That’s a *maintenance* policy, not an *insurance* policy. If we treated homeowners insurance and auto insurance like we do health insurance, the premiums would be 5-10x what they are.
That’s my $0.02
Typo??? Really, now, Mother Jones…...
Isn’t the (smug) silence from the pro-abortion groups evidence enough that abortion is indeed ensconced in this bill?
Following up something by Mr. Forrest, one of the problems of too much govt. controlling is three extra people added to the public payroll just to “regulate” every doctor and insurance company. What happens? Doctors and insurance companies pay extra overhead, which the patient has to pick up. Medicaid people simple lose care—doctors have to eat at the end of the day, too (they have extra insurance and loans on the books). Our older people need more care, but have less means - and they will lose out. All this is before the abortion question even enters!
This reminds me of Captain Kirk’s reworking of the “unbeatable scenario” in Star Trek (I may be showing a little bit of age here). If you can’t beat the rules, just redo them! Having to recircuit everything means you admit your deal isn’t good enough for time-proven (and constitutional) norms. Anyone know of the next Star Trek flick coming up this cast could premier in?
Following up on the Catechism number as well, I would think that an obvious extension (explicit in other parts) of defending the family is not deliberately destroying the institution of the family - which is what abortion does. It is part of the whole shebang of the “pleasure when you want, kids later, maybe” culture. Stupak indicated that this isn’t just speculation from us, but colleagues in the House (on the ideological side of Pelosi at company) really think this way. They want to reduce kids to an expense, and not a kid to be loved and cared for, who will in turn pass on the good of America and his faith to his kids in turn. And these are “my fellow Americans” and sworn officeholders?
test.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.