BIPARTISAN? President Obama holds a bipartisan meeting to discuss health reform legislation at Blair House in Washington Feb. 25. With Obama are Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio.
WASHINGTON — As Democratic leaders in Congress and the White House decide how to pursue a likely final push for enactment of a national health-care overhaul this spring, Catholic and pro-life leaders see signs that the latest approach could expand public funding for abortion even beyond previous versions of health reform.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and pro-life groups are carefully tracking developments on the federal health-care overhaul that was upended by a special election in January in Massachusetts. Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., shocked the Washington establishment when he was elected to the Senate seat long held by Democratic Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy, after explicitly running as the crucial vote against the health-care bill.
The result was that prospects for a final negotiated health-care bill between House and Senate Democratic leaders fell apart as moderate Democrats feared for the impact of the bill on their own chances for re-election. This fear was reinforced by polls that indicated the legislation had fallen into disfavor with the majority of Americans.
“There are a number of rank–and-file Democrats worried that they could lose their seats if they vote for this bill,” said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of pro-life activities at the USCCB.
In the weeks since the Massachusetts election, President Obama has sought to restart the drive for a comprehensive health-care law by introducing his own $950 billion proposal and holding a Feb. 25 bipartisan summit to discuss various health-reform proposals.
The Obama proposal closely mirrors the Senate-passed bill, which Catholic and pro-life groups roundly criticized for allowing federal tax dollars to subsidize insurance plans that cover elective abortions and allowing federal agencies to require that all private insurance plans cover abortion as “preventive care.”
Additionally, the Obama approach could go even further than the permissive Senate bill by providing $11 billion for community health centers, some of which could use that funding to directly cover abortions they provide, according to pro-life critics.
“The president’s proposal is the most pro-abortion of the health-care proposals to date,” said Matthew Faraci, a spokesman for Americans United for Life.
The bill also lacks many of the conscience protections that would keep Catholic health-care workers from having to participate in abortion or other unethical procedures, noted Doerflinger.
Democratic Defections
It was notable that Obama chose the abortion- and conscience-language approach of the Senate-passed health bill over the House-passed bill language, which included strong pro-life protections sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.
The pro-abortion language could undermine the legislative chances of the final health bill because Stupak and up to 12 other pro-life Democrats who supported the House-passed bill would oppose a final bill without abortion-funding restrictions. They could be joined by liberal Democrats who are upset that the final bill does not offer a so-called public option, according to health-care lobbyists.
Such Democratic defections would doom the health-care bill in the face of unified Republican opposition because the earlier version passed the House by only a five-vote margin.
A third group of Democrats that may move en masse against the bill are members of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Caucus, according to lobbyists. Many of these Democrats are from conservative districts and particularly sensitive to the decrease in public support for any health-care bill.
Democratic leaders and other supporters of the health-care bill have focused on swinging public sentiment back in favor of the overhaul, in order to bolster nervous moderate Democrats in the House.
“No legislative procedure is going to work until the public is shown that this is not the horrible bill that they have been led to believe,” said David Kendall, senior fellow for health policy at Third Way, a group that has supported the Democratic health-care bills.
There is also a strong possibility that Democrats may use a controversial tactic known as reconciliation, in which they would pass the bill in the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday revealed that Democratic leaders are asking the Senate to pass the legislation with a “simple majority.”
Supporters of the health bills may have a large task in re-winning the public to their side. A February CNN poll echoed many others when it reported that only 25% of Americans supported enactment of a health-care bill similar to the one already passed by the House and Senate. Abortion opponents also point out to swing district Democrats that there is wide public opposition to public funding of elective abortion. A December Quinnipiac University poll found 72% oppose the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions under any health-care reform effort.
“We’re focusing on reaching out to members of the House and encouraging them to continue to stand for life,” Faraci said.
‘Difficult Bind’
If Democratic leaders are unable to garner enough support for the Obama measure, then a piecemeal approach that advances individual pieces of a health-care overhaul separately is also possible, according to health-care experts. However, a limited approach will not come until Obama and congressional Democrats have exhausted all efforts to enact a comprehensive package, if only because they have already invested so much time and prestige on the effort.
“The polling is rather against doing anything on this scale right now,” Doerflinger said. Democratic leaders “are in a difficult bind.”
Rich Daly writes from Washington.
Edward Pentin: A Closer Look at Britain and the Culture of Death
Jimmy Akin: "Stop All Shows Glorifying Human Birthing!"
Comments
Post a Comment
Sometimes I wonder if we’re not led too easily into believing that these reform measures would expand abortion funding. Seems folks who who simply want to derail anything from Obama and/or the Dems will jump right to the topic that they know makes Catholics and conservatives nervous, especially Catholics and consevatives who don’t bother to really look into matters on their own. Both sides are equally adept at leading their weaker followers astray.
Given Obama’s record of nominations, the reversal of the Mexico City Policy, and the verbal rejection of Stupak’s measure, I don’t think we can count on a real reversal on Obama’s part—he sticks by his philosophy. Actions speak louder than words, and for Obama, you have to read the actions.
Isn’t it amazing how Obamatrons like David P. continue to insist that Obama must be lying about what he plans to do to promote abortion?
Mr. Obama and the people for whom he’s working continue to push for the recognition of pure evil (the worst form of murder ever conceived), in the midst of natural and not-so-natural catastrophies, exactly the same way Mr. Hitler did once in power regarding the Jews and other “calamities” of the time, seventy-seven years ago. This time, the eradication of the human race, in terms of abortion, has long gone beyond the Black Plague’s victims and all the deaths of the Second World War.
Regarding David’s comment on “conservatives” being misled into thinking this legislation is going to fund abortion, I think the answer is simple. When Bart Stupak and a big handful of Dem’s in the House successfully proposed their amendment, why weren’t Obama, Pelosi or Reid in overwhelming support? The answer is clearer than the elder Bush’s “Read my lips…”. That’s not mean—that’s the facts.
I think the debate on new proposals also needs to get out there, too. Obviously, the American people have spoken on this though Stupak and company, Scott Brown and numerous polls. They want change they can believe in, reform that is actually good, morally and fiscally. ObamaCare doesn’t meet that mark.
Personally, as a Catholic, I not only get nervous about the possibility of funding for abortions in this Healthcare legislation, I also wonder what I will need to do according to my conscience when my tax dollars are going to funding organizations that openly encourage funding like Planned Parenthood.
As to whether or not there is really funding for abortions and those organizations is dependent upon whether you believe Nancy Pelosi who stated rather unequivocally that there was no funding for abortions in this healthcare bill, or you belive the Bishops who are expressing concern that there is funding perhaps albeit indirectly to community health facilities or Planned Parenthood.
With the track record Washington has show for the last 30-40 years in its ability to sweep moral fidelity under the rug, and continue to act in their own best interests rather than what they were sent there to do,
I prefer to trust those who are responsible for my faith, rather than those who feel it is their duty to redefine America in “their’ image.
It is not likely that in the final judgement, any of these politicians will stand next to me saying they were the cause of my condemnation.
There is a whole lot more wrong with this pro-abortion party’s Senate bill and attempted take over of the health care industry than public funding of abortions. Even without public funding of abortion, over 50,000,000 babies have been allowed to be murdered by this party since Row v Wade. And you’re worried about public funding of abortion? You better be worried about the people this party would put in place making decisions for your medical treatment if this thing ever becomes law. Anybody paying close attention to this issue should know that there is no Obama bill. The only thing he has done is talk. There is only the Senate bill that was passed with 60 Democrat votes, and the Stupak amendment was not in that bill.
What Obama is asking the House to do is pass the Senate bill as is. If the House Democrats do that, the bill goes directly to the White House. There is no rule, procedure, or law that requires it going back to the Senate, no matter what Obama and the Senate Democrats have said. That means the House is being asked to pass something they do not agree with on the belief that changes will be made to the bill afterwards somehow by someone. That is insane. That’s like a contractor asking the homeowner to pay upfront for a remodeling project that he has no blueprints for, promising to make any needed changes later. Any homeowner who would ever consider giving such a contractor any business is a fool.
If the USCCB is lobbying on behalf of Catholics for better health care, they better be more thorough on what they are supporting on our behalf than just public funding of a medical procedure when dealing with the pro-abortion party, particularly when dealing with a megalomaniac that Obama is demonstrating to be.
In my humble opinion, I believe the USCCB has been clear about the difference between the need for health care reform and the specific version of the Democratic leadership are proposing. As “Stilbelieve” mentioned, abortion is not the only fault of the dominant vesion Obama prefers, but it is a serious one nevertheless. Also, the overwhelming bureaucratic overhead (look at Canada’s system) isn’t the best solution, in a merely practical-fiscal sense. Thus, the one-two punch of morals and economics makes ObamaCare a plan we can’t really believe in.
Every thing I’ve heard on the news and read on the USCCB website about the bishops’ position on the “Obamacare,” is about being in opposition to it if it includes public funding for abortions. I have not heard or read of any other objections they have with it. I take that to mean they will support it, or not oppose it, if abortion funding is removed.
They have been coy with the wording in their statements of what they want in such legislation, keeping it very general, in line with what they have been advocating in their so-called “social justice” program. If anything, the bishops have implied in their direct communication to Congress and the White House that they welcome this “legislation” and would be supportive if it does not included public funding for abortion. This is troubling to me.
I would think that with the 350 staffers assisting the bishops at USCCB, they would have discovered the serious moral dangers to life in this proposal, and the dishonest financial trickery in it, as has been pointed out by prolife Congressional legislators and conservative “think tanks.” But for some reason our bishop leaders have not addressed those issues, at all, with Congress. Why, I ask. The only answers that makes sense to me are - the bishops and staff are ignorant; or, are way in over their heads on these issues and dealing with politicians; or, their thinking is in line with the liberal, leftist thinking of the pro-abortion party.
I quietly asked a very respected prolife, pro-family Constitutional lawyer late last year, at a social gathering, what he thought of the USCCB’s effectiveness in D.C. He leaned towards me, lowering his head and said quietly, and with a sense of sadness and disappointment in his tone - “Very weak.” And these are our Church leaders representing at least 65,000,000 Catholics. Why do I get the impression that their thinking and goals of legislation and governing of the American people are not much different than those of the leaders of the pro-abortion party?
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.