-255x265.jpg "Catholic Health Association")
Sister Carol Keehan is the president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association (CHA), an influential lobby that represents 600 Catholic hospitals and 1,400 long-term care facilities across the nation.
In 2009, Sister Carol played a significant role in negotiations to pass the Affordable Care Act (ACA), President Obama’s landmark health-care bill known as “Obamacare.” However, in the wake of this month’s “fiscal cliff” deal, legislators and the White House agreed to $15 billion in cuts to hospitals, a hit for CHA’s members.
Last year, after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius approved the federal contraception mandate, Sister Carol raised concerns about the mandate’s narrow religious exemption, which excludes Catholic hospitals, and subsequently expressed support for the president’s Feb. 10 “accommodation” and related proposals that sought to pass on the costs for providing co-pay-free contraception, sterilization and abortifacient drugs to insurance carriers. However, in June 2012, the Catholic Health Association signaled that the accommodation was not acceptable and outlined proposals that would address the concerns of its membership.
Following the fiscal-cliff deal, Sister Carol, a member of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul, spoke with Register senior editor Joan Frawley Desmond about the outcome of the fiscal-cliff negotiations, her concerns about the next round of spending cuts this March, the HHS mandate and questions about tax-payer subsidies for elective abortions in the new health law.
The fiscal cliff deal approved on Jan. 2 included a reported $15 billion in cuts to hospitals for inpatient care and Medicaid payments, while blocking proposed cuts of 26% for Medicare reimbursement to doctors. What are your concerns about the impact of the fiscal-cliff deal, especially on your membership?
My first reaction is relief that we were able to get something done that prevented low-income and middle-income people from getting a huge tax hike when they could least afford it and that preserved continued unemployment benefits so that people will have a little more help while the economy gets better.
I was glad the doctors were not going to have to take a 26% cut, though [the fix for doctors] is only for a year, and we will be back with the same challenge then.
I didn’t really care for the fact that they paid for the fix for doctors with cuts to hospital payments, because they have already made cuts in funding to hospitals.
During negotiations leading up to the passage of the health bill, we agreed that, in the future, hospitals would take less reimbursement in two areas. First, in 2014, when newly insured people come into the system, we would take less than expected for annual inflation-adjusted reimbursements for Medicare. For example, instead of 1.5%, let’s say, we’d take 1%.
We also agreed to take a decrease in what Congress calls “disproportionate-share funds” for serving the Medicare and Medicaid populations who are very poor. Previously, when I ran a Catholic hospital, we needed the disproportionate-share funds to help offset the costs of taking care of charity cases and bad debt.
But in the negotiations for the ACA, we targeted 30-32 million of the 48 million uninsured to get insurance in 2014. Thus, half of [hospitals’ financial responsibility for] charity care and bad debt were removed. In exchange for that assistance, we had to accept cuts in funding of about $155 billion. We took the big reduction in order to be part of the solution that became part of the Affordable Care Act [ACA].
Now, with the fiscal-cliff deal, we have a new reduction before we even get these new people insured. It’s not a catastrophe, and it’s not a surprise; but it’s not a welcome event.
What could happen when Congress returns to further negotiations on spending cuts and reducing the national debt in two months?
We want to be certain that they don’t do anything that undermines efforts to roll out the Affordable Care Act as signed into law, such as changes in the number of people eligible for Medicaid expansion or the subsidies provided for state exchanges. If they modify those, they create a negative incentive.
Any kind of wholesale cut to Medicare reimbursement for physicians or hospitals would be a problem.
Our members are really concerned that we don’t have excessive or unwise cuts. We need to make the transition to new models of care in a way that doesn’t undermine our ability to provide excellent care to everyone. We need good equipment; we need to pay employees justly; and we want to be able to welcome people who can’t get care at other facilities. We should be known for our willingness to reach out to people.
Our members look forward to more people having their own health insurance and to getting people enrolled as quickly as possible.
Many hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, have been crushed by the costs of serving undocumented workers, yet the Affordable Care Act doesn’t provide funding for that group of patients.
We have known all along that the ACA would not be passed if we included the undocumented. I have said that if we get help for 30-32 million uninsured Americans then it’s even more incumbent on us to reach out and help immigrants. And we need to keep pushing for coverage for them.
At CHA, we have said that the Gospel calls on us to respond to the needs of the undocumented. When they are here and are sick, we need to help them.
This is part of the total context of a just immigrant policy. We don’t have that. It will be a different world on this issue with the new Congress because of the election.
You have been a strong supporter of the new health bill. What’s your assessment at this point?
It leaves some issues unresolved, like the immigrant question and fixes for doctors. But health-insurance companies now have to spend 80%-85% of [their budget] on health care, not on high salaries or stock dividends, and that is a good thing.
Some critics and supporters of the president say that what he really wants is a single-payer health-insurance system.
As someone who has spent untold hours in negotiations with the president’s senior staff and at Health and Human Services, and has talked with him personally, I don’t see him taking that position. But there are people who do not like this multipronged approach to health insurance for our nation.
Any comment on recent court decisions dealing with HHS mandate cases? A New York district court approved a preliminary injunction for a Catholic health-care facility that challenged the federal mandate, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals directed the administration to provide updates on its efforts to finalize proposed rules that address the concerns of religious institutions.
What we said in our June 15, 2012, letter to the Department of Health and Human Services is that [its] current proposal was not the best way to fix [the mandate]. It needs to be fixed.
After the accommodation was announced on Feb. 10, I was very pleased that they recognized the need to change it.
This issue became very polarized during the election season. I also didn’t think it would get more priority than the fiscal cliff, so I haven’t been holding my breath.
But they have put out an intent to publish the rules, and now it is time to do it. I look forward to getting it addressed. I look forward to giving my best advice.
In CHA’s June 15 letter to the HHS commenting on the proposed rulemaking, you ask for an expanded religious exemption to include “Catholic hospitals, health-care organizations and other ministries of the Church.” You also suggest that if the federal mandate is retained, the administration “should find a way to provide and pay for these services directly without requiring any direct or indirect involvement of ‘religious employers,’ as broadly defined.”
We put out our position [in the June 15 letter] after consultation. We have tried very hard to follow the comment rules appropriately. For example, there is no negotiation, the [HHS] officials are supposed to be listening and not negotiating or modifying until the comment period is over. Therefore, we do not talk with them about “Can you do this?” or “Would this be possible?” We simply either tell them in writing or verbally and in writing what we think.
We have a responsibility to [follow the comment rules]. We have not had a public statement since our letter. We gave out recommendation on what we thought was the best way to fix it, but we never said it was the only way.
We have been told by the bishops’ leadership that they were pleased with our letter. We stay in contact with the bishops and the leadership of the conference staff.
The bishops have a bigger fish to fry than I do. They have the whole of Catholic ministries — universities, parishes and charities. I have a very small piece compared to that challenge.
Has the intensity of the controversy ignited by the mandate surprised you? Are we entering a new, more secular era with more pushback for Catholic institutions?
Some of this is recycled, and it sometimes stems from anti-Catholic motivation, sometimes [from] competitive [tactics]. As someone who did ob-gyn at a Catholic hospital, I can recall people starting rumors about Catholic health care. A physician tells his patient, “I don’t want to deliver you in a Catholic hospital because they always want to save the life of the child, and I want to save your life.” We often dealt with this kind of misinformation, and yet our record on maternal and infant mortality is enviable.
If we know history, we should not be surprised. Earlier generations faced this, and worse, at times. We need to deal with it in a Christian manner.
We need to have a strong obstetrical presence in this country. If we claim to value life, we must put our time and treasure at the service of life. We cannot say, “You should not have an abortion,” and then say, “Go to another hospital for your care because we can’t do it.”
We need to provide high-quality care for any mother having a baby, whether she has resources or not. In a pluralistic society, we need to maintain the ability to be that strong presence.
Last year, in a Jan. 24, 2011, letter to Rep. Joseph R. Pitts, R-Pa., you supported the proposed Protect Life Act, H.R. 358. You stated: “While we continue to believe the current provisions of the Affordable Care Act prevent federal funding of abortion, your legislation will provide further protection by codifying the Hyde Amendment relative to the new health-care-reform law.” Are you still confident that this is the case?
I have not heard anybody talking about doing an “end run” around the Hyde Amendment. If that were a possibility, I would hear that from pro-life legislators.
Members of Congress and their staff understand how important the Hyde Amendment is to CHA.
However, last year, the USCCB raised concerns about an ACA final rule that “requires many health insurers to charge all enrollees for elective abortions. This requirement has surprised many people, who thought that they had been assured the new health-care-reform act would not make taxpayers fund abortions.” Your response?
The president made a commitment before a joint session of Congress that abortion would not be federally funded. The bill allows plans in the exchanges that want to offer abortion to do so by charging a separate premium each month for it. This must be audited every year to assure that the separate premium is sufficient to cover the costs. No part of the federal subsidy given to low-income workers in the exchanges can be used for the separate abortion premium. It covers only the basic health-care components of the basic health-care plan.
We have followed this very closely and were pleased to see two separate federal judges rule there was no federal funding of abortion in the Affordable Care Act.
Comments
Post a Comment
Why are you publicizing anything to do with this woman?
Sister Keehan says,
-
“If we claim to value life we must put our time and treasure at the service of life. We cannot say, ‘You should not have an abortion,” and then say, “Go to another hospital for your care because we can’t do it.’”
What should we say Sister Keehan then? The interview should have asked her to clarify what she meant when she said this, because it sure sounds likes she’s implying doing something that goes against Church teaching.
The February 10, 2012 concession is sinful against Mark 14:38 and Matt. 26:41 leading others into temptation even though not paying for it themselves. If the Catholic Church ever accept this cncession scandal would result. The HHS mandate is unconstitutional against the Free Exercise of Religion Clause to the Federal First Amendment because Prolifers are coerced to consent to a tempmtation to violate religion in practice in order to become eligible to receive non-offensive to religion group health insurance benefits. My breakthrough in religious freedom exposes the relgous error for 50 years now which the U. S. Supreme Court has deceived the Merican People which is a crime just waiting to be told all explained in my web page at: http://UnbornJustice.blogspot.com
Carol Keehan should have been obedient to the Bishops,
and thought about all these consequnces prior to supporting President Obama and his Obamacare.
He never hid his beliefs in favor of abortion for convenience, etc.
She was warned about Freedom of Religion; abortafacient drugs, contraceptives, and voluntary sterilization all at taxpayer expense; and the unappealable death panels who will decide who is worthy of limited health funds based upon age discrimination, etc.
Not to mention the wasteful spending of millions of tax dollars for new government employees for implementation and punishment purposes - from the death panels to the IRS, and everything in between.
The Catholic Hospital Association should remove Keehan, or lose its right to use the name “Catholic”.
It would have been interesting to know if she voted for Obama for President.
It would also be interesting to know what she thinks about the age related discrimintion that went into effect in Oct, 2012 whereby Hospitals are penalized for readmitting senior citizens only for a related illness within a specific time frame. This discrimination does not apply to others with government supported insurance such as government workers, members of Congress or the White House, or those on Medicaid.
There is none so blind as she who will not see.
I agree. There seems to be no followup to anything Sr. Keehan stated. This is sadly lacking ... I would expect better from NCR. Sister Angelica wouldn’t have handled an interview in this manner…sure lacks her zeal for the Lord and for the Faith!
Keehan is a heretic. I ask the same question posted here by Pam: Why are you publicizing anything to do with this woman? She is a pro-abortion, anti-Catholic who was used by Obama to fool people into thinking that Catholics are fine with Obamacare’s abortion and contraception mandates. Keehan should have been excommunicated by now.
Keehan expresses no regret that healthcare funding for abortion is increasing while payments to doctors and hospitals for basic care of the poor is *decreasing.* Well Stanley, that’s another fine mess you’ve gotten us into.
Among other complaints that I have with all this, one BIG one for me is:
Why does everyone put Medicare and Medicaid in the same sentence?
Medicare has been paid for by all those people who have worked their whole lives….while Medicaid is paid for by the same tax payers, to the people who are receiving Medicaid and have paid little, if any, into the system.
I resent that I, as a hard working American for 55 years now, am considered a hand out!
“The President made a commitment before a joint session of Congress that abortion would not be federally funded.”
True but irrelevant, since Obamacare via the HHS mandate just compels insurance companies, employers and individuals to provide and participate in plans where chemical abortions (i.e., abortifacients) are mandatory as part of “preventive services.” It is not federally funded (for now), but still compulsory under federal law that abortion is provided for and funded (unless you qualify for the intentionally and ridiculously narrow religious exemption), and if not, the insatiable maw of the IRS adds you to its menu. Hobby Lobby understands this which is why they will not comply with the HHS mandate regardless of the consequences.
Roe and its companion rulings made abortion on demand legal, and now Obamacare is making it ever more accessible (chemical for now under obligatory preventative services in current HHS mandate); and if Sr. Keehan believes that the current pro-abortion administration after re-election will stop there, than she seems for some inexplicable reason to ignore Matthew 10:16 to the point where IMO she is being neither wise nor harmless in supporting Obamacare.
Here’s a possible look at our own future down the road.In Britain, Catholic midwives objecting on religious grounds to participating in abortions have been ruled against by the courts:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20945005
Frustrating… I also wonder how SEIU plays into this picture.
Next time let your viewing public know that you will be interviewing a person with Carol Keehan’s history and ideology; and ASK YOUR VIEWERSHIP to chime in on the questions to ask. That will give the interviewer an out for posing strong and important questions which affect our moral ethics as Catholics.
The Catholic Church denounces socialism, yet supports the Affordable Care Act albeit but fully. The ACA is unconstitutional. This is not within the role of the central govt. Such issues are better addressed at the local level. Although the intended consequences, to provide care to all who need it is honorable, the unintended consequences are unfortunate. That is, the federal govt assumes even more authority and veers out of control towards the ultimate socialist state. I pray that the Church openly acknowledges the existence of the sovereignty of the states, the proper role of the federal govt with its limited and enumerated powers, and the unfortunate indoctrination into this nationalist mindset.
The HHS mandate should have been opposed. The rights of conscience for all employers should have been protected, not just Catholic hospitals or colleges and other institutions. Who pays for abortion coverage is a concern to be sure, but the principle issue that needed to be won was the requirement for the coverage. We needed a conscience exemption, as was used in the day of the draft into military service, not a religious exemption.
“undocumented workers”...meaning illegal immigrants. Typical liberal speak from a secular sister making a million bucks a year.
Until such time as the good sister recants her stand and renews her vows and once again freely agrees to follow the teachings of our church, nothing she has to say is of any value at all. It is my opinion that one cannot be a Catholic and support funding for abortion or contraception. She clearly does and she should re-evaluate and seek return to the good grace of the church. I am sure her bishop would agree to help her along that path.
Please do not offer non-Catholic opinions such as those of this woman. As Catholics we have enough to contend with against the secular world without having to fight the wolves who have invaded our Church.
In other words, she is saying we must be willing to make concessions. But as our bishops have said and as our church teaches, some things are non-negotiable. These issues seem to be being dealt with very much as abstractions. Does no one see the slippery slope, the real cliff we are currently going over as a culture into a completely secular worldview, a worldview of what’s expedient in the moment, a worldview that denies the value of sacrifice and suffering as a means to acquiring character, learning virtue, gaining wisdom?
I’ll be blunt: The good sister is delusional if she believes anything said by the President at face value. The President made a commitment before a joint session of Congress about abortion? So what. Ask Bart Stupak how that worked out.
Please. Sister, wake up.
I am with Pam; what are you doing? I was dismayed at the closing of last week’s EWTN’s World Over episode when Mr. Arroyo found it fitting to bestow his “Most Influential Lay Catholic of the Year Award” jointly on Joe Biden and Paul Ryan. Then he closed by saying something like- I’ll leave it up to you and the bishops to decide which was most influential. Really? Those two are 180 degrees apart in their approach to the moral issues and both are deemed equally influential? Exactly what kind of influence are we lauding here? And now today, this from the National Catholic Register interviewing Sr. Keehan. Isn’t that the same Sr. Keehan that was openly defiant against the U.S. Bishops when she pushed diligently for the passage of the Affordable Care Act? And now she’s being interviewed? Why? Halfway through the article I scrolled back to the top to make sure I was reading the Register and not the Reporter. I know the Register was recently purchased by EWTN, so I will ask again: what are you doing?
I am greatly disappointed that Joan failed to ask Sister Keehan exactly what she proposes a Catholic Hospital is supposed to do when someone wants an abortion. The correct answer is complete when you say “you should not have an abortion” you definitely do not say “Go to another hospital” You have a staff ready to support this distressed person in every way possible and you assure her that God loves her immensely and also her baby. Tell her why she should not have an abortion, the risks, the taking of a life created by God, you put her in contact with birthright, you have all the options against an abortion available for her. That is what a faithful Catholic hospital does. Joan gave Sister a pass and thereby becomes complicit in the deception.
Sister Carol is mistaken about abortion not being funded by taxpayers, in spite of what the president has promised in that regard. When abortion is funded in a separate premium, it is still being funded by taxpayers. And does she not know that Planned Parenthood is funded by taxpayers, and they got $542 of taxpayer money last year, and did more abortions than ever! This president is for the killing of pre-born children at every stage in utero, and also partial birth abortion. And he wants ALL of us to pay for this holocaust. Sr. Carol is either very naive, or she does not value life any more than he does.
With all due respect Ms. Keehan I failed to identify a single Catholic based statement in this entire article yet, your vocabulary accurately reflects those of a politician. Our American culture is becoming more confused by the year regarding Catholicism and what it truly means. Please study up on your faith or relinquish the title of Sister. We deserve it and so do you.
Agree with abimopectore. Be Not Afraid, Catholic Register, to clarify what Sister Keehan said here. “Go to another hospital for your care…” Baby care for most is obstetrics - but the culture of death defines baby “care” as abortion. Which does Sister Keehan refer to?
Gee, Sister, haven’t you ever heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences? People from all income levels are now finding out that their paychecks are smaller due to increased taxes being withheld, some are seeing enough being taken that it makes it difficult for them to buy groceries to feed their families. What will they eat now? Healthcare? This so-called affordable care program probably doesn’t cover the effects of malnutrition. But that’s OK as long as everyone gets contraception and abortion on demand, isn’t it? And by the way, the separate rider for abortion care, this is the first time I’ve heard of it. If it were true, why hasn’t it been well-publicized before this?
Sister, you were a useful tool.
What a perfect democratic POTUS candidate she’ll make in 2016. Sounds as though she’s already tossed her wimple in the ring.
This woman has no credibility considering that she advocated Obamacare (and still does).
Catholicism is not compatible with Socialism (that is, Collectivism) and a totalitarian state. This woman’s position is totally incoherent—on the one hand she waxes poetically about the Catholic social justice for the poor and sick, yet, on the other, she’s perfectly happy with the government’s insistence on replacing the Church with itself. I’m so tired of this unprincipled nonsense from Socialists who call themselves Catholic (yet have zero understanding of law, politics, economics, or, frankly, logic). Don’t think for one instant that government wants to be friends with the Church. Has history not taught us that is not a possibility? The whole point of totalitarian moves to take control of the health care industry and FORCE American citizens to purchase health insurance (in complete violation of their constitutional rights) is to subjugate people, and cause them to depend on (worship?) government instead of the Church. The Church has been providing hospital care and care for the sick for a couple of millennia—it’s only impediment, EVER, has been a (benign) government coming along and pass regulations that restrict medical care to state-approved activities, and crowd out the market. Are we so dumb to think that the government is here to help expand Catholic healthcare and social justice activities? Answer this: Has government mandated education helped expand/advance parochial schools? Or, rather, has it driven up costs to a point where only the elite can send their children to these schools, as the unwashed masses are forced to incarcerate their children in substandard prison houses from K through 12 (where they get to learn about global warming and gay history)?
Catholics should stand shoulder to shoulder with anybody fighting this evil Leviathan of government—it’s total folly to this government is anymore benign than Rome, Russia, China or Germany.
And don’t buy into the hogwash John Roberts and the Supreme Court have told you either—forcing people to buy a product is STILL unconstitutional; just as the Roe v. Wade court had no constitutional authority to let people to murder their pre-born children—at least, not based on the original intent of the Constitution and the Natural Law underpinning that document. Just because a State Priest in a black robe calling himself “Justice” said murder is fine, and citizens aren’t really free, does not make it so. The Constitution does not provide for the State’s right to provide healthcare, welfare, or care for the poor and sick (you know, those things we used to say the CHURCH is supposed to provide). Any religious advocating this unconstitutional expansion of government should answer the question: “If the government is supposed to provide all these things, what exactly is your job Sister/Father? Lobbying?”
“The president made a commitment before a joint session of Congress that abortion would not be federally funded.” Yes, and Lord Almighty there’s gambling in Casablanca now too! I’m shocked, shocked I tell you that the Great Obama would lie through his teeth with shameless abandon. And here I thought he was a swell dude!
This woman has no credibility considering that she advocated Obamacare (and still does).
Catholicism is not compatible with Socialism (that is, Collectivism) and a totalitarian state. This woman’s position is totally incoherent—on the one hand she waxes poetically about the Catholic social justice for the poor and sick, yet, on the other, she’s perfectly happy with the government’s insistence on replacing the Church with itself. I’m so tired of this unprincipled nonsense from Socialists who call themselves Catholic (yet have zero understanding of law, politics, economics, or, frankly, logic). Don’t think for one instant that government wants to be friends with the Church. Has history not taught us that is not a possibility? The whole point of totalitarian moves to take control of the health care industry and FORCE American citizens to purchase health insurance (in complete violation of their constitutional rights) is to subjugate people, and cause them to depend on (worship?) government instead of the Church. The Church has been providing hospital care and care for the sick for a couple of millennia—it’s only impediment, EVER, has been a (benign) government coming along and passing regulations that restrict medical care to state-approved activities, and crowd out the market. Are we so dumb to think that the government is here to help expand Catholic healthcare and social justice activities? Answer this: Has government mandated education helped expand/advance parochial schools? Or, rather, has it driven up costs to a point where only the elite can send their children to these schools, as the unwashed masses are forced to incarcerate their children in substandard prison houses from K through 12 (where they get to learn about global warming and gay history)?
Catholics should stand shoulder to shoulder with anybody fighting this evil Leviathan of government—it’s total folly to think this government is anymore benign than Rome, Russia, China or Germany.
And don’t buy into the hogwash John Roberts and the Supreme Court have told you either—forcing people to buy a product is STILL unconstitutional; just as the Roe v. Wade court had no constitutional authority to let people to murder their pre-born children—at least, not based on the original intent of the Constitution and the Natural Law underpinning that document. Just because a State Priest in a black robe calling himself “Justice” said murder is fine, and citizens aren’t really free, does not make it so. The Constitution does not provide for the State’s right to provide healthcare, welfare, or care for the poor and sick (you know, those things we used to say the CHURCH is supposed to provide). Any religious advocating this unconstitutional expansion of government should answer the question: “If the government is supposed to provide all these things, what exactly is your job Sister/Father? Lobbying?”
“The president made a commitment before a joint session of Congress that abortion would not be federally funded.” Yes, and Lord Almighty there’s gambling in Casablanca now too! I’m shocked, shocked I tell you that the Great Obama would lie through his teeth with shameless abandon. And here I thought he was a swell dude!
I agree with Pam. Wavering on this is really not an acceptable position. My thoughts were the same when I read that same quote. Social justice is a part of Catholic teaching, but the respect for life is not only a Catholic teaching (and theologically of higher importance than social justice), but it is actually a commandment, right?
It is wonderful that Sister Carol and the USCCB are now on the same page. Praise the Lord.
It does sound as though Sister Keehan is suggesting that they go elsewhere for an abortion. How can she in conscience advocate having an abortion—killing our babies—in such a discreet way? We must say no to abortions.
I think she meant her prenatal and maternity care, not an abortion.
She spoke very carefully in this interview. Nothing she says *here* directly contradicts Catholic teaching. Perhaps I should put the stars around “directly” also, because there is a tiny bit of obfuscation when she speaks of the doctor who wants to go elsewhere because “they always want to save the baby.” It is true that Catholic teaching prohibits a direct attack on the life of the unborn child even to save the life of the mother, but these situations are rare these days to the point where they approach non-existence. They don’t actually reach non-existence, and perhaps there are a few in the country each year. In those very hard cases, we Catholics do have to make a decision which seems hard hearted to pretty much everyone else. So she points to the fact that the infant and maternal mortality in Catholic hospitals are both very very low, and doesn’t address these very rare extreme cases. And no one really asked her to do so.
This was an awfully softball interview. How about asking her if the hospitals she represents will disobey the mandate? How about asking her if any of these hospitals prescribe contraceptives, or the morning after pill, or do sterilizations? How about asking her if any of them have rooms in their hospital buildings which they say are part of another hospital, so that they can do abortions on premises and say they are not done “in” their hospital?
But as to what she said here, there is little to object to. You can disagree with her pleasure at a more Democratic congress, you can disagree with her approval of Obamacare in general, you can disagree with her about what services we ought to provide to illegal immigrants, but you can’t really say she has said a word here contradicting Catholic teaching.
I wonder what potential spam my comment contained? I trust NCR to find no *actual* spam in it!
Susan Peterson
Seeing who the interview in the article was with, I skipped to the comments; there were only.two. They were enough to make me realize I don’t to waste my time getting aggravated reading what she had to say.
I read the actual section of Obamacare that said that everyone in an exchange will be charged for abortions. As Sister said, there are two separate funds in order to keep abortion funding separate from taxpayer funded services. However, the funds for the abortion fund come —not from taxes — but from the premiums each person pays. The law also forbids insurance companies from informing people that they will be paying for abortions until they sign up. Taxes don’t pay for abortions but everyone who enrolls in that insurance exchange does pay for abortions through their premium, whether they want to or not. I read it in the law itself. I wonder if Sister knows that. Surely she is not being as disingenuous as the President and the Democrats are.
“Ah humph, er ah humph, humph”, clearing her throat as the sanctimoniously self righteous tend to do, “As someone who has spent untold hours in negotiations with the president’s senior staff [“humph, er ah humph”] and at Health and Human Services, and has talked with [“humph, er ah humph”] him personally, I don’t see him taking that position. But there are people [“humph, er ah humph”] who do not like this multipronged approach to health insurance for our nation.” Sounds like good ol’ Sister Keehan has a cozy relationship with the purist, secularist president and his administration. Not that that is news. No doubt whatsoever too, count her among those “who do not like this multipronged approach to health insurance.” The person who has no problem with making pacts with the devil as long as it protects her precious “very small piece” of Catholic ministries. That’s right, the medical field that takes up 1/6 of the American economy is still small potatoes for the Sister Keehan crowd and the CHA. You know, make certain the unconstitutionally power driven presidential level executive branch by way of excessively punitive fines (and force if necessary) ensures “insurance companies . . . spend 80%-85% of [their budget] on health care, not on high salaries or stock dividends” as long as it aids the poor, the uninsured, and the not yet so far as Sister wants, government insured, so-called undocumented immigrants with a gun barrel looking down on them. Now that’s Catholic social justice for ya’ Judge Roy Bean style. Don’t forget the egregious Hobby Lobby too there Sister that has to set aside 1.3 million dollars a day in escrow while it awaits a final legal battle with the federal government and its even lovelier evil stepsister, the endearing HHS while your CHA sits on a pretty little exemption. Oh!, Sister Keehan you make my liberation theology heart go thumpity, thump, thump!
I’m with Pam. Why on earth would the staff of this newspaper give this woman a place for her talking points? Especially the last line, which is untrue?
The damage that Sr. Keehan did to the salvation of souls, the health and welfare of the sick and unborn - and our country - is incalculable.
What’s next? An interview with Nancy Pelosi?
This article sounds like a lot of mumble jumble, another example of big government-big institution, can’t anyone in leadership just say legalized abortions are so terrible and wrong and we are having no part of it
this woman should have been ex-communicated by now…...
“We have followed this very closely and were pleased to see two separate federal judges rule there was no federal funding of abortion in the Affordable Care Act”.
I do not understand this sister, what is she talking about!, is this true?.
Well then how come abortion inducing drugs are allowed if there is a Hyde amendment out laws this??? Should have asked about this as well.
“You have been a strong supporter of the new health bill. What’s your assessment at this point?”
“It leaves some issues unresolved, like the immigrant question and fixes for doctors. But health-insurance companies now have to spend 80%-85% of [their budget] on health care, not on high salaries or stock dividends, and that is a good thing.”
Um, no. Sister, with all due respect, what the insurance companies will do, if they haven’t already, is increase premium rates, drop coverage of non-mandated medications, procedures, and treatments, and it’ll be business as usual.
If I want an abortion, my insurance company is ahead of the game, and will provide it for free.
If I want to pay for allergy testing for my 2-year-old son, they will cover less than 30% of the bloodwork. There is nothing controversial about the bloodwork ... it’s standard protocol for allergy-sufferers, especialy for children.
At the end of the day, so few really care, and of those who do, so many are short-sighted or blinded by other considerations. The rest of us pay.
All RTL law firm are going in the wrong direction by applying the Restoration of Freedom of Religion Act to defend aginst the HHS mandate. Why? I know from 33 YEARS LEGAL RESEARCH that he HHS mandate violates the Federal First Amendment under the free exercise of religion clause under my breakthrough in religious freedom. I have 34 page letter explaining my breakthrough in religious freedom. Upon request I will send you my copyrighted definition thereof.
We can thank Keehan for her roll in getting Obamacare passed into law. She was Obama and Biden’s Catholic propaganda prop to get votes from Catholics who were on the fence. She is a charlatan. I don’t know why the Bishops are keeping her around. For that matter, I don’t know why the Bishops haven’t excommunicated Kathleen Sibelius. Things are really going to get ugly.
To abimopectore:
I think you are misreading Sr. Keehan, as I did at first. What I believe she means is, if we want to discourage women from having abortions, we need to be able to provide all their other care affordably at our hospital. We can’t turn them away to other hospitals, where they will then possibly be encouraged to do the wrong thing.
Alison,
This is why I said they should have asked her to clarify what she meant, because from what was written you can’t conclude what you’re assuming she meant.
As far as I know, Keehan still calls herself a “Catholic”.
She therefore would fall under the title “Catholic Heretic” and/or “Catholic Schismatic” and should be called as such in the printed media, using definition in CCC # 2089.
This is what happens when religious get involved in secular politics in areas where they have no expertise - legislation, executive orders, etc.
Regarding Arroyo naming Joe Biden as influential - he was influential all right - his heresy and schism and RELATIVISM were sent all over the world. Biden had been forbidden by his Bishop to speak in Catholic Diocese schools a few years back. (If anyone has a legitimate issue with any programming of EWTN, just send them an email. Address is provided on their web site.)
This woman, like Judas, betrayed the innocent into harm’s way by providing cover for Catholic Democrats who wanted to vote for Obamacare. Why is the Register giving her room to speak further? Why should we support the Register financially if this is who they want to give voice to?
Why are these comments so hateful?! Where is the charity? Why does everything have to be seen in a political lens? What happened to my church?!
Keehan was told by the Bishops about “freedom of religion” issues - which she did not care about.
She was told that all of us would be forced to pay for abortions, abortafacients, voluntary sterilizations and contraceptives for other people - which she did not care about.
She is dishonest by playing with words. When you purchase your insurance through the GOVERNMENT REQUIRED exchange - you will be paying for murder of the unborn, and other mortal sins. - Thanks to Carol Keehan.
She does not deserve the title of ‘Sister’. so I will merely call her Keehan.
There are many Christians, (not only Faithful Catholics), practicing Jews, and Muslims who abhore abortions for religious reasons - Keehan did not care about that either. She is a narrow minded heretic and schismatic. She is one of many who is destroying the moral fabric of the USA.
Keehan has never publically apologized for her strong public role in helping to pass evil legislation.
Legislation that will kill many more unborn babies by making it “free” at our expense; and kill more elderly, seriously ill, and disabled by Obama’s death panels who will be making health care decisions from behind a desk - their first concern will be cost - not care.
Posted by Hank on Wednesday, Jan 9, 2013 5:52 PM (EDT):Why are these comments so hateful?! Where is the charity? Why does everything have to be seen in a political lens? What happened to my church?!
Hank,
Unfortunately in case you haven’t noticed, “my” as in your, Church is so deeply infiltrated by socialists like Sister Keehan, it is they who’ve politicized Mother Church while all other remaining true Catholic followers have left to do is respond. But then it sounds as if you prefer the 1st amendment to apply only to the Sister Keehans of the world. What is so hateful about recognizing and outing persons like Sister Keehan who have excessive power, and utilize it to harm untold millions of people because of her own askance political outlook? Rather than actually being guided by Catholic principles she has created her own blend of faith through her own political lens.
Argh! I’m Catholic and I’m angry! That’s how I show my love for God and neighbor, by being extremely angry. And legalistic. And judgemental. I love God so much, I’m filled with hatred for this woman. Argh!
I think Mark stated my feeling on this interview and some of what could be call bending toward the political right by ncr and Arroyo lately.
Again, Mary and others who asked: I read that section of the actual bill. It specifically says no taxpayer money will be used on abortions. But, here’s the trick. You still pay for it. Everyone who enrolls in any of the insurance exchanges has to pay for abortions through their premium. So . . . taxpayers are paying for the abortions through their premiums, not their taxes. No federal funding is true—because you, not federal funds, will pay for other people’s abortions through your premium whether you want to or not. The law specifically forbids the insurance company from telling you that until you sign up. In addition, as others have pointed out, all employers must provide free abortifacients (which employees pay for through their part of the premium) and for contraception that works by aborting. Plus, of course, half a billion dollars of funding to Planned Parenthood. One way or the other they force us to pay for abortions and other evils. Because freedom is for them, not us.
Hank, this is not politics. Unless you favor abortion, you understand that this is a matter of literally millions of children, children who give their lives so that their parents can have an easier one (or so they think), dying each year in our country through abortion. Babies. Dying. It is our duty as Catholics to speak out against intrinsic evil. That is not being uncharitable. St. Paul spoke out very specifically against Evil—as did many other saints. We can only hope that we and others will continue to speak out—clearly, unequivocably, yet charitably (hate the sin, not the sinner)—in the future. Also, understand that those who are commenting are speaking to others who believe like they do. They are speaking their frustration and their realization that no one is listening except fellow believers, in particular those in power are not listening (oh, how many letters I have sent in vain to Claire McCaskill.) If they were speaking to Sister Carol, they would speak politely, though clearly. Let us have patience and charity towards each other as well as sympathy for those who truly are unheard in this society. I believe Sister Carol has a lot of Democrats and President singing her praises. Perhaps a good dose of reality is the most loving thing we can do for her. I, as I know many others do, pray for her, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Kathleen Sibelius, and President Obama, asking God to love and guide them and to have mercy on them. Love us, too, Hank.
Hank, The discussions is not a ‘political lens’. The principles and practices of Obamacare are treacherous to the salvation of souls and the sanctity of life. These are theological and human rights issues that deal with the demoralization of women, the murders of children, withholding medical care from senior citizens, euthanizing sick people.
Sr. Carol Keehan is responsible for this train wreck and we are speaking out against the publishing of her misinformation in a Catholic newspaper which has historically had a reputation for faithful service to Christ and our country.
This is over the line. The article should be removed, and an apology issued.
What is next?
Nancy Pelosi’s talking points on second trimester abortions?
I for one, am happy that the NCR interviews people like Sister Keehan. This way we all can see where she is coming from. Just think, if you didn’t read her beliefs, would you believe a Sister would follow this path?
thank you Sister. A reminder relative to your statement on the HHS mandate, where you stated “The bishops have a bigger fish to fry than I do. They have the whole of Catholic ministries — universities, parishes and charities. I have a very small piece compared to that challenge”. We are but one body, each responsible for the whole, not individually responsible for isolated pieces. take care
When “Sr” Keehan is given a platform here, you know we have officially crossed the border into Crazytown.
Worrying more about “hateful comments” than about the daily murder of children, the progressive deterioration of our religious liberties and rights of conscience, and the abusive coldness with which the elderly are slated to be treated, for starters, is sheer folly, at best.
I am not going to compromise the dignity of humanity, the right to life of all from conception to natural death, the freedom of conscience that is our due . . . these are natural rights. Not political issues. THEY have made these into political issues by mishandling the law and abusing our trust and their responsibility. They are supposed to guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, NOT destroy it. Those who align themselves with such hateful “leadership” SHOULD be questioned, and should be removed from positions of authority.
Anne:
What sources have you used to support you statements about Sister Keeha.? Seems to me that much has been taken out of context. I would really like to know.
Search the internet, you will find all you will want to know, including but not limited to the picture of Keehan at the signing of Obamacare and receiving a signing pen from OBAMA for all her help in getting the bill passed.
Here’s just one from CNA, March 24, 2010 QUOTE: “Sister Keehan, who strongly supported the controversial health care bill despite the opposition of the U.S. bishops, was joined in receiving presidential pens by some of the most strongly pro-abortion members of the Congress: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; Senator Dick Durbin, majority whip; Max Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee; Senators Tom Harkin and Christopher Dodd; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer; James Clyburn, majority whip; George Miller, chairman of the Education committee; Henry Waxman, chairman of Energy and Commerce; Sander Levin, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee; John Dingell and Charles Rangel, former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.”
Anne:
Thanks. I have seen those articles. I was hoping to see something from the Sister herself that specifically states her position. Having worked in DC myself I know that one is often invited to negotiate pieces of legislation, especially when it is to be jammed down our throats. It is symbolic as well as political on the part of the lead supporting party. I suspect Sister K. did the right thing in at least attempting to negotiate, albeit with terrorists, instead of doing nothing. IMHO, media tells half the story.
ADTWF:
Well said! And kudos to you for recognizing that govt has overstepped its role and authority. This is the first step in defeating Obamacare. Nineteen states have nullified the law, under the 10th amendment. They refuse to set up the required exchanges, despite SC decisions. This could collapse the system.
Nice post, well done! Thank you!
Posted by LegalisticPharisees on Wednesday, Jan 9, 2013 7:15 PM (EDT):Argh! I’m Catholic and I’m angry! That’s how I show my love for God and neighbor, by being extremely angry. And legalistic. And judgemental. I love God so much, I’m filled with hatred for this woman. Argh!
Mr. Pharisees,
It appears you’re the judgmental one (as if the having the sense to judge between evil and good, right and wrong is somehow hateful to begin with). So-called progressive or moderate Catholics, or of whatever faith or non-faith denomination you are, have been inculcated in hate and anger for any and everyone who doesn’t fall in goosestep with the oh so loving thy brother Sister Keehans of the world. I mean, all those unnecessary exclamation marks you add to color a vain attempt at sophisticated wit appears as a projection of your own deep anger, and in such a self-righteous and sanctimonious tone. You must spend a good deal of time at practice with comic relief.
This"soft soap” treatment of this sister and the cowardly Cardinals and Bishops,especially that faker in N.Y.,Dolan)is another reason that I will not be renewing my subscription to the Register.
John, this is not the time to turn away from the only Catholic newspaper that has the courage to print dissenting opinions about the leadership of the Church in the U.S. NCR has the courage to print article critical of the bishops and readers opinions that confirm that criticism. We need their support in expressing our concerns. Please reconsider what you said. This paper is not the problem; the thinking of the “lets be non confrontational bishops” is the problem.
We now know that Obamacare will require parents to purchase insurance, possibly at great cost for each of their children, regardless of whether they want it or not. No possibility of “self-insuring” here. Some way to promote the culture of life, openness to the gift of children, and adoption! Nice going, Sister Carol. Oh and hey nice assist from USCCB. Gotta love that socialized medicine and its impact on the most important unit of society, the family.
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.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.