WASHINGTON — The U.S. bishops advocated for universal health insurance for decades, but could not endorse the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act because of concerns about abortion funding and weak conscience provisions.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will complete three days of often contentious oral arguments on the constitutionality of the new health bill. And, for Church leaders, the proceedings serve as a painful reminder of the difficulty of securing universal health care in the United States, but also this administration’s failure to embrace the moral concerns of a natural ally on social policy.
Asked to comment on the high-profile case before the court, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, offered a terse comment in an email message: “The U.S. bishops are in favor of health-care reform that protects life from the moment of conception until natural death.”
Yesterday, backers of the bill continued to gather outside the court to wield signs and chant slogans of support, even as other groups opposing the bill conducted their own counter demonstrations, press conferences and prayer services. But after a morning of strong exchanges between the justices and the solicitor general representing the federal government, the USCCB’s long-term policy goal seemed even more remote.
As the high court heads into a final day of oral arguments, the future of the two-year-old health law is now in doubt, according to unexpectedly gloomy media speculation. The New York Times offered an analysis likely to dampen the hopes of the law’s supporters.
Summarizing the skeptical questions regarding the individual mandate from Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, the Times’ March 27 article noted, “The conventional view is that the administration will need one of those four votes to win, and it was not clear that it had captured one.”
However, Gerard Bradley, professor of law at the University of Notre Dame, cautioned against this kind of speculation.
“It is perilous to predict the result of a Supreme Court case by the tenor of the oral arguments. Many times a justice who appears to be hostile to one side or the other (because his or her questions of counsel are pointed or even skeptical) is really looking for reassurance that there is an answer to a lingering question that a justice may have,” said Bradley—before predicting that the court ultimately would uphold the law’s individual mandate “by at least a 5-4 vote.”
At issue is whether Congress possesses the authority to force Americans to obtain insurance or impose a fine on them — the gist of the “individual mandate” under review on the second day of oral arguments. Today, the high court will address the issue of severability — whether and how the law might survive without the individual mandate.
But if some justices raised concerns about a federal law forcing citizens to purchase health insurance or incur fines, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took a different approach.
Ginsburg observed that similar questions had been raised about the establishment of the Social Security system and questioned rhetoric describing the new health bill as “a government takeover.”
Ginsburg’s plaintive remark would likely echo the thoughts of many Catholic supporters of universal health care who initially endorsed the Obama administration’s effort to extend insurance to an estimated 30 million people.
“Health-care-reform legislation and implementation should be supported that 1) ensures access to quality, affordable, life-giving health care for all; 2) retains long-standing requirements that federal funds not be used for elective abortions or plans that include them and effectively protects conscience rights; and 3) protects the access to health care that immigrants currently have and removes current barriers to access,” reads a February 2010 statement summarizing the position of the USCCB.
When the final version of the proposed Affordable Care Act failed to incorporate language barring subsidies for elective abortions or securing conscience rights for health-care workers, the bishops regretfully withheld their support.
“We will advocate for addressing the current problems in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as well as others that may become apparent in the course of its implementation,” stated the USCCB in a subsequent statement addressing health-care issues.
The conference’s decision to withhold support for the bill was validated earlier this month, when pro-life groups reported that federal regulators had just approved a final rule requiring all state insurance exchanges to include segregated monthly premiums in a fund for elective abortion services of no less than one dollar per subscriber.
“This scheme allows Obamacare to get around the controversial issue of government-funded abortions with a new funding source: mandatory private payments by you, the insured,” wrote Dorinda Bordlee, Nikolas Nikas and Mark Rienzi in a March 27 National Review post.
While some bishops have expressed regret that the new health-care law’s anti-life provisions precluded a USCCB endorsement, Obamacare’s many critics say its problems are not limited to federal subsidies for abortion and weak conscience provisions.
“The ‘contraceptive’ mandate, which is but the first of hundreds of governmental diktats in the implementation of Obamacare, should cause everyone to re-examine their thinking about the new health bill,” argued George Weigel, who has written extensively on Catholic social doctrine.
“There must be ways to address the Church’s concern that everyone has adequate health care without turning one-sixth of the economy, and a good chunk of the culture, over to the unregulated regulators at the Department of Health and Human Services,” added Weigel.
James Capretta, an expert on federal health-care policy and a Catholic who serves as a research fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, is sympathetic to the bishops’ unique stance on health-care reform, straddling positions that transcend the partisan divide.
“In some ways, the bishops had little choice but to be in favor of a process that they believed would result in a more equitable system, without having a lot of influence or control over that process,” said Capretta, who was associate director of the White House Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.
But Capretta argued that Obama and many of the special interests pushing for the health-care bill embraced an approach to expanding insurance coverage that is “dangerous for the health-care system and the position of Catholics in it.”
First, the new law is a “mechanism for drawing power and authority to the federal government. Second, health care centers on important moral questions, and the federal government has a secular orientation different from the Catholic Church’s view of human dignity,” Capretta asserted.
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia offered a similar judgment of this administration’s guiding view of First Amendment issues. “Our national leadership in 2012 seems deaf to matters of religious freedom abroad and unreceptive, or frankly hostile, to religious engagement in public affairs here at home,” Archbishop Chaput writes in A Heart on Fire, an e-book released March 27.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of June. But whatever the outcome, the bishops will be heartened to learn that Capretta believes the debate on Obamacare has actually moved the nation closer to accepting the need for dramatic reforms that reduce health-care costs and provide coverage for patients with pre-existing conditions — even though opinion polls point to broad support for repealing all or some elements of the health bill.
In an article in National Affairs, Capretta argues that a successful “replacement plan must be true to the Constitution and reflect a genuine federalist philosophy. Any program to address the problems in American health care will entail some degree of national policy, but it can still leave ample room for state initiative and encourage state-level solutions.”
The next election could determine who gets the next chance to craft legislation that incorporates the Church’s concerns about universal health care protected by strong moral guidelines. And Notre Dame’s Gerard Bradley suggested that the President’s political fortunes are already bound to the controversial health bill—whatever its fate.
“The net effect either way is in favor of the Republicans. If the Court strikes down the individual mandate the President may be seen as careless about the Constitution. If the Court upholds the mandate and the whole reform, then he could be blamed for orchestrating an oppressive, unaffordable health care overhaul,” said Bradley.
Register senior editor Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Tom Hoopes: Why Catholics Are Grateful to George W. Bush
Tim Drake: Election Night: Live Blogging
Comments
Post a Comment
Pretty telling is it not? The bitter, bitter fruit of 50 years of an unholy marriage of the USCCB to the Democrat Party; the knee-jerk endorsement of virtually every single one of their counter productive programs. The lending of an always thin but now micro thin veneer of morality to these offish agnostic and atheistic “my Party right or wrong but my Party” thugs all boils down to the sickeningly correct statement of Sister Mary Ann Walsh that “The U.S. bishops advocated for universal health insurance for decades.”
Have we learned nothing from this debacle??? Have we not yet learned that Big Government Monopoly Healthcare is a sham, that Big Government Monopoly Healthcare will always waste resources and be a Tabernacle for Satanic abortion practices???
Obamacare was and is a singular product of the Democrat Party ... it was and is and always will be wrong for the Bishops to associate themselves so intimately with the Democrat Party. It is long, long past time that this Marriage be annulled. Then and only then can sensible, responsible and above all MORAL Healthcare programs be enacted on a State level with each individual Bishop whose flocks are affected denouncing them when they are immoral and endorsing them when they are on track.
The clandestine manner in which this bill was hustled through Congress supports any rejection that The Supreme Court would hand down. If only a bill to reform health care could have been offered after those involved in the health care industry were consulted along with those who have a vested interest in health care, i.e. doctors, nurses, clinicians, insurance company representatives, ethical experts, etc. instead of politicians ramming such an abomination down the throats of our citizenry…!!!
I don’t see how this is Obama-CARE—It’s more like OBAMA-KILLING. This bill is for population control. It offends the religious. It wants to fine poeple that may not be able to afford insurance, not because they don’t want to pay for it, but they simply cannot.
This bill doesn’t help anyone but the rich liberals to get perks for their immoral behaviors.
The individual mandate imposes a significant financial burden on people who would forego insurance that they are not likely to use. So for instance, instead of having a liquid emergency fund, paying off debt, or—heaven forbid!—donating to charity, a healthy person could be paying over $1,000 a year in premiums for just a high-deductible policy, which they can probably kiss goodbye, if not forever, than probably for many years; and if not, to pay an onerous fine. And if the government can tell people they must buy insurance, I see no reason it cannot tell them what that insurance must minimally include. This is an injustice, plain and simple.
American Bishops have behaved like sheep for decades, and vocations have declined for decades. They must learn to do their job and lead! Behave like Shepherds, following the example of John Paul II and then like magic vocations will increase. Meanwhile we Catholics have paid a terrible price for our trust in their guidance. Hopefully they have learned that Federal Universal healthcare has been, is, and always will be a terrible idea. It is the federal gov’ts door into every single portion of our lives, including our religious lives. Grow up, man up get out front and lead.
Cardinal Dolan was on fox news O’Reilly factor last night and was asked by O’Reilly if he would tell caholics not to vote vote obama….Cardinal Dolan said HE WOULD NOT TELL CATHOLICS NOT TO VOTE FOR OBAMA….the democrat party is the party of death to the child in the womb, and the spreading of the same sex deviation throughout the country and this WEAK LEADER LEAVES HIS BACKBONE behind….and we get the Church and shepherds we deserve
Cardinal Dolan was absolutely correct in saying the Bishops will not tell their flock to vote. This principle goes back to Jesus Christ who said” render to Caesar what is Caesars’ and to God what is Gods’”. He also said that it is the role of the Bishops to teach the truth and up to the laity to base their actions on the truth. The truth is that the policies of the Democratic party support all kinds of error - most fundamentally - against the right to life for the unborn, sodomy, many tenets of socialism- condemned by several popes and much more. They appoint Justices to the Federal Court system who ignore the rights protected by the Constitution. No faithful Catholic, who knows their faith, can in good conscience vote for a democrat who subscribes to the party platform.
tolerating dissent in the Church has what turned the Church upside down and given us homosexual priests, rebel nuns,and Catholic women on birth control..if people dont accept the Churches teachings 100% then the bishops and the Pope should excommunicate them all…..better to have a smaller faithful flock than the mess the Church has spawned
Mr. Waligora is correct…I too am deeply disappointed in Cardinal Dolan.
Years ago, my Parish priest advised me not to buy liquor in behalf of under age students indicating that it was at minimum a venial sin with the potential to rise to a mortal sin, in the case of a subsequent death.
Similarly, enabling elected officials who in turn support abortion is a mortal sin.
In the next post, Mr. Golfer’s citation of “render to Caesar…” is misapplied. Should we render to the current administration the power to kill, or should we, by our vote, give life as God directs?
With respect to Church leadership we have no vote, except by withholding tithe. Is this OK with the Bishops?
Please go to the Oreilly Factor to listen to what Cardinal Dolan really said in the interview. He said that he would not tell Catholics who to vote for/or not to vote for; but he would instruct the Catholics along with our Bishops and Priests as to what we cannot compromise on. He was standing up for us Catholics in America and I feel we need to continue to Stand Up for our Religious Freedom. Cardinal Dolan also said that they would not back down, so I feel they have our back and as Americans we must get out there, educate ourselves and others, and turn out to vote in great numbers.
O’reilly said on the factor last night that if the priests told the people from the pulpits not to vote for the democrat party, that it would lose it tax exempt status…..i say the hell with the tax exempt status and do without it…CALL EVIL AND SIN FOR WHAT IT IS YOU SPINELESS SHEPHERDS AND IF THE PARISHIONERS LEAVE,SO BE IT…...........
Open letter to Timothy Michael Cardinal Dolan
.
Dear Cardinal Dolan,
We are thankful you are our national Catholic leader. Charges by certain commenters above are groundless and disrespectful or else based on ignorance of Catholicism.
.
Your Eminence, brevity herein intends no disrespect as when having to present evidence for a number of USCCB problems whose feasible repairs by you and brother bishops are achievable in time for the heated 2012 campaigns. In this most dangerous year, Catholics sorely need to experience that “apostolate of friendliness” you extended last November in your Baltimore Address: “There’s nothing we enjoy doing more than helping our people, and everybody else, get to know Him (Christ) and her (the Church) better. That’s our job description.”
.
Part 1 herein is about responding to the HHS Mandate with some equivalent of the following *gut-level* (not gutter-level) irrefutable truth hereby requested to be presented in every parish across America *by its own lay parishioners under prior content-approval of their local bishop*—for not-to-exceed five minutes immediately after weekend Masses:
.
“ANYONE willing to coerce God-endowed consciences treats God’s people like mere animals!!”
.
In periodic presentations during the remaining campaign months, other bishop-approved selected truths would get aired together with brief reminders of the above gut-level statement on that threat to Responsible Religious Liberty. By avoiding naming candidates, Clergy & Laity functioning inside-Church are free to talk strongly about ISSUES and potential damage to our children’s future and to the Republic *even when an issue is heavily associated with a particular high level candidate*.
.
In upstate NY we demonstrated in a “Witnessing With the Poor” pilot program successfully run for three years that it is easy for a handful of willing parishioners to learn how to give such short presentations. Indigenous use of God’s people avoids problems of scheduling and paying for invited speakers for 19,000 U.S. parishes. That enormous logistics-benefit is absolutely priceless because it allows 19,000 Catholic parishes across America to educate millions of Mass-attending members on any given weekend. Sustaining Religious Freedom comes at the price of being willing and able to work together as just described. .Your Eminence, this proposal is prompted by your urging Catholic laity to get involved.
.
Email and internet facilitate communications with parish-designated leaders across America so that it is realistic to see how all 19,000 parishes could be ready in *one month to six weeks* from a “go-ahead” signal since each parish prepares independently and the task for each parish is bite-size and easily manageable with help from one’s local bishop on content. The Founders did not hesitate to use their available resources and we of 2012 are not talking about minor matters. Catholic and other God-respecting allies can turn our country around, at least give it a fresh start, dear Cardinal Dolan. Then, after the election, the USCCB can follow Benedict’s urging that we ‘teach & preach’ for better understanding of and respect for God-blessed human sexuality. I will give my connecting information to your Archdiocesan Office right after Palm Sunday.
.
The above or an equivalent gut-level defense-of-conscience statement will allow contracepting Catholics to “talk up Responsible Religious Freedom” with fellow Catholics while comfortably avoiding occasions of being asked why they are contracepting. Though contraception per se is not the central issue via the mandate, it can and does come up. As above-commenter Rosemary notes, “as Americans we must get out there, educate ourselves and others, and **turn out to vote in great numbers**.”
.
We ought not to risk loss of the Republic by waiting for the USSC decision by late June. The attempt to coerce conscience did happen and that fact signals the kind of hardness and disrespect that will worsen in a second term when as the President said in Korea on another topic, he will have more “flexibility”. Either way the USSC decision goes, we are stronger in several ways by being underway in May.
.
To again quote Your Eminence: “if we do not act now, the consequences will be grave”.
.
In a separate “Part 2”, there is need to surface a very few fixable, non-doctrinal yet critical problems with the USCCB “Bulletin Insert” still used since 2007 – problems that truly leave laity unintentionally misled about a *well formed* conscience and about some Key Church-honored principles for protecting and rebuilding society with success.
.
With love and respect,
.
William F. Folger
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.