Health care for all has been a goal for the U.S. bishops for almost a century. Yet despite the apparent Supreme Court victory June 28 for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the nation still does not have health care for all.
Most glaring is the lack of protection of the unborn, because the ACA allows use of federal funds for elective abortion. Rather than protecting children in utero, the health care law endangers them when it takes the unprecedented step of authorizing federal funds to subsidize health plans that cover such abortions. In addition, with the Health and Human Services mandate to coerce employers and employees to pay for female sterilization and contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, children in utero are endangered more than they were before. When the ACA allows federal funding of abortion in various provisions, it contradicts longstanding federal policy in all other health care laws, such as Medicaid, Medicare and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
The Affordable Care Act also excludes undocumented immigrants from the new health care exchanges, even if they simply want to purchase insurance with their own money. This is a cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face action, given that the ACA can’t work unless as many people as possible buy into the system. The stance also drives up health care costs for all of us because undocumented immigrants who cannot purchase insurance will be forced to seek medical care in the more expensive emergency room setting. For some, politics requires you fight against undocumented immigrants everywhere, despite the fact that about 11 million of them have become part of the fabric of America, holding jobs, paying taxes and making the economy work.
Some people will benefit from the Act. People with pre-existing medical conditions cannot be discriminated against, a merciful outcome. Young people can stay on their parents’ insurance until they are 26, certainly good now when post-college does not automatically mean a good job with insurance benefits. The exchanges will help working families who don’t have insurance through their employers. Uninsured poor people will be helped by the Medicaid expansion if their state pursues the expansion, which the Court’s ruling has now made optional.
But the bill is significantly flawed and the Administration and Congress need to face this when they stop popping champagne corks celebrating an apparent victory.
1. ACA allows use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions and for plans that cover such abortions, contradicting longstanding federal policy. This law can be fixed by amending it to bring it into line with other health care legislation, for example by passing the Protect Life Act (HR 358) that the House has approved.
2. ACA fails to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protection, both within and beyond the abortion context. This has been illustrated in dramatic fashion by the HHS mandate to force religious and other employers to cover sterilization and contraception, including abortifacient drugs. Most of the conscience problems are problems of omission, because the act does not include protections of conscience that other federal programs have. This law can be fixed also by amending it to bring it into line with other health care legislation, by enacting the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179) supported by a majority of the House and a near-majority of the Senate.
3. ACA fails to treat undocumented immigrant workers and their families fairly, leaving them worse off by not allowing them to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges created under the law, even if they use their own money. Congress could easily change this.
Getting nearly universal health care is a first step. Now Americans need to get it right. This flawed Act needs fixing.
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Friday, June 29, 2012
Friday, March 9, 2012
Amish, Ok. Catholics, No.
The Amish are exempt from the entire health care reform law. So are members of Medi-Share, a program of Christian Care Ministry. Yet, when the Catholic Church asks for a religious exemption from just one regulation issued under the law – the mandate that all employers, including religious institutions, must pay for sterilization and contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs – the Administration balks.
The government respects the First Amendment that guarantees the right to freely exercise one’s religious beliefs, but only to a point. In the health care law it picks and chooses which beliefs it respects. The Amish do not believe in insurance, and the government understands. Christian Care Ministry believes people should form a religious community and pay medical bills for one another, and the government says okay. Yet when the Catholic Church opposes being forced to pay for services that violate its beliefs, the Administration says “tough.”
What is so special about this mandate that it cannot be touched? It was added after Congress passed the health care law and offers no exemption for religious charitable or educational institutions. It will not accept Catholic charities and schools as “religious enough” unless they hire only Catholics, serve only Catholics, have the narrow tax exempt status granted to houses of worship, and teach religion as their purpose.
Amazingly, this mandate has more force than the overall health care law. In fact recent regulations allow states to decide which “essential health benefits” to require in health plans, such as hospitalization, prescription drugs and pediatric services. At the same time, all insurance plans must include the objectionable services mentioned above. Here federal law trumps state law and threatens to fine into submission institutions that dare oppose it. The going rate is at least $100 per day per employee.
What has the government got against the Catholic Church? Has it forgotten the contributions the church has made to the poor and needy for centuries?
Catholic elementary and secondary schools provide the only real alternative to public schools in many parts of the nation. Catholic colleges offer outstanding education, be it at the university or the community college. The contribution has a long history, back to 1789 when Georgetown University was founded by the Jesuits. Yet under the health care law, if these schools and colleges wish to remain faithful to their religious principles the government will fine them into submission. There’s a thank-you note.
Many Catholic hospitals were founded by religious orders of women, and today one out of six persons seeking hospital care in the United States goes to a Catholic hospital. Until now, religious background of the patient has not been an issue. “Where does it hurt?” is the first question, not “Where is your baptismal certificate?” This approach threatens to deny hospitals any real protection as “religious employers” under the new rule. Yet their Catholicity means many of these hospitals have an added benefit. At Providence Hospital in Washington, DC, for example, patients not only get medical care, they can get clothing too if they need it. It comes through the Ladies of Charity, an auxiliary of the Daughters of Charity who founded the hospital in 1861.
Catholic social service agencies, including adoption and foster care agencies, parish food banks, and soup kitchens, meet human concerns. Services depend on need, not creed. Church sponsorship means the services have a little extra, be they volunteers from parishes, financial donations through diocesan appeals, or the dedication that comes from working for God as well as paycheck.
A Catholic might take personally the Administration’s dissing their beliefs. Lucky the Amish, who have their basic constitutional rights respected. If only we objected to health insurance generally, we might be able to enjoy the same protection. Seems odd that the Administration is more inflexible on contraception than on services that actually treat disease.
The government respects the First Amendment that guarantees the right to freely exercise one’s religious beliefs, but only to a point. In the health care law it picks and chooses which beliefs it respects. The Amish do not believe in insurance, and the government understands. Christian Care Ministry believes people should form a religious community and pay medical bills for one another, and the government says okay. Yet when the Catholic Church opposes being forced to pay for services that violate its beliefs, the Administration says “tough.”
What is so special about this mandate that it cannot be touched? It was added after Congress passed the health care law and offers no exemption for religious charitable or educational institutions. It will not accept Catholic charities and schools as “religious enough” unless they hire only Catholics, serve only Catholics, have the narrow tax exempt status granted to houses of worship, and teach religion as their purpose.
Amazingly, this mandate has more force than the overall health care law. In fact recent regulations allow states to decide which “essential health benefits” to require in health plans, such as hospitalization, prescription drugs and pediatric services. At the same time, all insurance plans must include the objectionable services mentioned above. Here federal law trumps state law and threatens to fine into submission institutions that dare oppose it. The going rate is at least $100 per day per employee.
What has the government got against the Catholic Church? Has it forgotten the contributions the church has made to the poor and needy for centuries?
Catholic elementary and secondary schools provide the only real alternative to public schools in many parts of the nation. Catholic colleges offer outstanding education, be it at the university or the community college. The contribution has a long history, back to 1789 when Georgetown University was founded by the Jesuits. Yet under the health care law, if these schools and colleges wish to remain faithful to their religious principles the government will fine them into submission. There’s a thank-you note.
Many Catholic hospitals were founded by religious orders of women, and today one out of six persons seeking hospital care in the United States goes to a Catholic hospital. Until now, religious background of the patient has not been an issue. “Where does it hurt?” is the first question, not “Where is your baptismal certificate?” This approach threatens to deny hospitals any real protection as “religious employers” under the new rule. Yet their Catholicity means many of these hospitals have an added benefit. At Providence Hospital in Washington, DC, for example, patients not only get medical care, they can get clothing too if they need it. It comes through the Ladies of Charity, an auxiliary of the Daughters of Charity who founded the hospital in 1861.
Catholic social service agencies, including adoption and foster care agencies, parish food banks, and soup kitchens, meet human concerns. Services depend on need, not creed. Church sponsorship means the services have a little extra, be they volunteers from parishes, financial donations through diocesan appeals, or the dedication that comes from working for God as well as paycheck.
A Catholic might take personally the Administration’s dissing their beliefs. Lucky the Amish, who have their basic constitutional rights respected. If only we objected to health insurance generally, we might be able to enjoy the same protection. Seems odd that the Administration is more inflexible on contraception than on services that actually treat disease.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Health Care Distortions Part 2
The majority of the month of August saw the U.S. bishops' message on health care reform articulated pretty clearly, largely via the Web portal sponsored by the Conference, Web videos on the bishops' position and positive media coverage.
The clear conveyance of this position took a little bit of a hit with an August 28 article in the New York Times, "Despite Church's Push on Issue, Some Bishops Assail Health Plan." The article separates the two thrusts of the bishops' ongoing message, put in simplest terms: 1. Health care must be reformed. 2. Abortion is a deal breaker.
The article's argument that the U.S. bishops are ready to jump ship on health care comes from quotes from bishops' statements in their dioceses, including Sioux City, Iowa Bishop Walter Nickless saying, "No health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform" and Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput applying words like "imprudent" and "dangerous" to the current proposals in Congress.
The article stretches reality a little further, however, when it cites the July 17 letter to Congress by Bishop William Murphy and the August 11 letter to Congress by Cardinal Justin Rigali as examples of leaders of the U.S. bishops divided, with the former "eager to back the Democrats' efforts" and the latter saying lawmakers should "block the entire effort."
This oversimplification misses the point that both Bishop Murphy and Cardinal Rigali write on behalf of the USCCB and that each is addressing his area of specialization and concern (as chairman of Domestic Social Development and chairman of Pro-Life Activities, respectively) against the backdrop of the Conference's position as a whole. The difference is almost entirely one of emphasis.
This is evident as the article (rightly) mentions Bishop Murphy's opposition to abortion provisions in the bill, but (not mentioned in the article) it's even more evident as Cardinal Rigali begins his letter by urging Congress to bear in mind the principles put forth in the Murphy letter. These are hardly two bishops in opposition.
Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy said as much in a joint letter in Sunday's New York Times, in which they restated both parts of the bishops' position and called on President Obama to ensure that any health care reform bill he signs into law "will not force Americans to support the taking of human life at any stage through their taxes or health premiums."
The New York Times article was also the first in a succession of news stories and other coverage that depicted the U.S. bishops as divided on, or simply opposed to health care. These stories also quote subsequent statements from Fargo Bishop Samuel Aquila, Rockford, Ill. Bishop Thomas Doran, Kansas City, Kan. Archbishop Joseph Naumann and Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo. Bishop Robert Finn.
Rather than get into a point-by-point analysis of the arguments of each bishop, I'd much rather do some oversimplication of my own and say that this is ultimately about the richness of Catholic teaching. All of the bishops' statements, including such examples listed above that raise serious red flags about current health care proposals, government intervention in health care, etc., speak to the value of health care and the worthiness of the goal of reforming it.
On the national level, the bishops have put forward their priorities and principles for good health care reform. When you start with overarcing principles, an individual bishop certainly has latitude to reflect on the application of those principles. And it shouldn't be a surprise that different voices will raise different concerns with different emphases and levels of specificity.
Ultimately, the bishops aren't supporting anybody's plan without question or opposed to the notion of reforming health care. They're being bishops ... considering the moral dimensions of public proposals and and proclaiming the teaching of the Church.
The clear conveyance of this position took a little bit of a hit with an August 28 article in the New York Times, "Despite Church's Push on Issue, Some Bishops Assail Health Plan." The article separates the two thrusts of the bishops' ongoing message, put in simplest terms: 1. Health care must be reformed. 2. Abortion is a deal breaker.
The article's argument that the U.S. bishops are ready to jump ship on health care comes from quotes from bishops' statements in their dioceses, including Sioux City, Iowa Bishop Walter Nickless saying, "No health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform" and Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput applying words like "imprudent" and "dangerous" to the current proposals in Congress.
The article stretches reality a little further, however, when it cites the July 17 letter to Congress by Bishop William Murphy and the August 11 letter to Congress by Cardinal Justin Rigali as examples of leaders of the U.S. bishops divided, with the former "eager to back the Democrats' efforts" and the latter saying lawmakers should "block the entire effort."
This oversimplification misses the point that both Bishop Murphy and Cardinal Rigali write on behalf of the USCCB and that each is addressing his area of specialization and concern (as chairman of Domestic Social Development and chairman of Pro-Life Activities, respectively) against the backdrop of the Conference's position as a whole. The difference is almost entirely one of emphasis.
This is evident as the article (rightly) mentions Bishop Murphy's opposition to abortion provisions in the bill, but (not mentioned in the article) it's even more evident as Cardinal Rigali begins his letter by urging Congress to bear in mind the principles put forth in the Murphy letter. These are hardly two bishops in opposition.
Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy said as much in a joint letter in Sunday's New York Times, in which they restated both parts of the bishops' position and called on President Obama to ensure that any health care reform bill he signs into law "will not force Americans to support the taking of human life at any stage through their taxes or health premiums."
The New York Times article was also the first in a succession of news stories and other coverage that depicted the U.S. bishops as divided on, or simply opposed to health care. These stories also quote subsequent statements from Fargo Bishop Samuel Aquila, Rockford, Ill. Bishop Thomas Doran, Kansas City, Kan. Archbishop Joseph Naumann and Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo. Bishop Robert Finn.
Rather than get into a point-by-point analysis of the arguments of each bishop, I'd much rather do some oversimplication of my own and say that this is ultimately about the richness of Catholic teaching. All of the bishops' statements, including such examples listed above that raise serious red flags about current health care proposals, government intervention in health care, etc., speak to the value of health care and the worthiness of the goal of reforming it.
On the national level, the bishops have put forward their priorities and principles for good health care reform. When you start with overarcing principles, an individual bishop certainly has latitude to reflect on the application of those principles. And it shouldn't be a surprise that different voices will raise different concerns with different emphases and levels of specificity.
Ultimately, the bishops aren't supporting anybody's plan without question or opposed to the notion of reforming health care. They're being bishops ... considering the moral dimensions of public proposals and and proclaiming the teaching of the Church.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Health Care Distortions Part 1
Here at the Conference, we spent much of the month of August promoting the bishops' position on health care reform. This has been most evident in the new Web page dedicated to everything health care. The promotion of the page has led to some good media coverage, with some outlets really getting the idea of the two-fold message of the bishops, that is, strong support for health care reform, particularly affordable universal health care, but strong opposition to mandated coverage of abortion, federal funding of abortion and threats to conscience protection.
This has also led to media coverage that disparages and misrepresents the bishops' position, for instance this August 18 piece from Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, which appeared in the Huffington Post. While the bishops never dignified this piece with an official response, Richard Doerflinger, longtime pro-life expert for the USCCB answered many of her points in a later article.
I asked Deirdre McQuade, spokesperson for the USCCB's Pro-Life Secretariat, for some observations on the Planned Parenthood accusations.
Richards attacks the bishops for opposing federal abortion coverage, funding, etc., finding it "ironic," as if that opposition undermines the call for universal coverage. But McQuade noted, "First of all, Richards really doesn't get what universal health care means. 'Universal' health care means coverage for all people. In the bishops' definition of all people, this includes the poor, immigrants and the unborn."
This has also led to media coverage that disparages and misrepresents the bishops' position, for instance this August 18 piece from Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, which appeared in the Huffington Post. While the bishops never dignified this piece with an official response, Richard Doerflinger, longtime pro-life expert for the USCCB answered many of her points in a later article.
I asked Deirdre McQuade, spokesperson for the USCCB's Pro-Life Secretariat, for some observations on the Planned Parenthood accusations.
Richards attacks the bishops for opposing federal abortion coverage, funding, etc., finding it "ironic," as if that opposition undermines the call for universal coverage. But McQuade noted, "First of all, Richards really doesn't get what universal health care means. 'Universal' health care means coverage for all people. In the bishops' definition of all people, this includes the poor, immigrants and the unborn."
McQuade added, "'Universal coverage' means that all human beings in need should have access to health care, not that all health plans should cover whatever elective procedures Richards favors. Our Catholic vision -- far from being exclusive or limiting -- supports the most inclusive definition of universal coverage."
McQuade then explained why the exclusion of abortion is completely fitting for the bishops' vision of health care.
"It's simple," she said. "Abortion is not medical care. Pregnancy is not a disease, and fertility is not a pathological condition. Pregnant women are not carriers of illness but human beings with dignity who deserve optimum care along with their children, born and unborn."
Richards also casts the bishops as being out of step with the mainstream and using health care reform to advance their agenda. But McQuade pointed out that the bishops are actually standing up for longstanding and widely supported laws (i.e., the Hyde Amendment) when they oppose federal funding for abortion. Apparently, not only have federal funds long been kept from abortion, but even federal employee health benefits packages (the packages enjoyed by members of Congress) do not cover the vast majority of abortions.
"Since Planned Parenthood is the largest single provider of abortions in the United States, it is perhaps not surprising that Richards wants to consider abortion on demand an essential part of health care," McQuade said. "But most American disagree, and most doctors, nurses and hospitals do not provide abortions. It's really not that difficult to understand that killing is not a form of healing."
In light of these details, Richards' Huffington Post piece takes on something of "when you point a finger, three point back" in terms of her accusations that the bishops are trying to hijack health care for their own agenda. Richards, according to McQuade, "is the one pushing for unprecedented changes in our health care system that have little to do with health care itself and much more to do with promoting abortion -- her very limited agenda. She is the one trying to shift the status quo and who is out of sync with public opinion. Even self-described 'pro-choice' Americans often oppose subsidizing abortion with their own tax dollars."
The bishops, on the other hand, are the ones doing as they've always done, advocating for accessible, affordable health care for everyone, especially the poor and the vulnerable, including the unborn.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Legal Immigrants and Health Care Reform
Why should any plan that emanates form the current national debate on health care reform include legal immigrants? The answer should be obvious: legal immigrants are lawful -- and in many cases permanent -- residents of the United States. They work -- with government authorization -- and pay taxes into the system just as U.S. citizens do and, thus should be able to access federal benefits that guarantee the protection of basic human rights.
The issue revolves around whether legal immigrants must continue to wait five years before they become eligible for Medicaid, which is the current law (otherwise known as “the five-year ban”), and whether the five-year ban should be extended to legal immigrants of higher incomes who otherwise would become eligible for subsidies to buy health insurance.
Opponents say legal immigrants are not U.S. citizens and that any plan should only include U.S. citizens. They also suggest that the cost of including legal immigrants would be prohibitive. The truth is that the numbers do not support such claims.
According to the non-partisan Kaiser Foundation, non-citizens have less access to health care and receive less primary health care than U.S. citizens, but they are also less likely to use the emergency room. A July 2009 article in the American Journal of Public Health supports this claim.
According to the Immigration Policy Center, the average immigrant uses less than half the dollar amount of health care services than the average native-born U.S. citizen. This is because they are usually younger, healthier and less likely to use medical services, and due to the fact that U.S. citizens make up 78% of the non-elderly uninsured.
Opponents of the inclusion of legal permanent residents should check their math. When health costs are distributed across a broader pool of people, who in addition tend to use those services less, the overall costs for everyone goes down.
Earlier this year, legal immigrant pregnant women and children became eligible for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). All pregnant women and children, regardless of their immigration status, should receive coverage to ensure that newborns are healthy and children receive regular check ups and vaccinations.
Legal immigrants pay into the system, so they should be able to access the benefits, just like everyone else.
The United States recognized that health care is a universal human right when it signed on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948 (see Article 25). We have, however, a less than convincing record on upholding this right for our population. Forty-seven million uninsured people are a powerful witness against us.
The issue revolves around whether legal immigrants must continue to wait five years before they become eligible for Medicaid, which is the current law (otherwise known as “the five-year ban”), and whether the five-year ban should be extended to legal immigrants of higher incomes who otherwise would become eligible for subsidies to buy health insurance.
Opponents say legal immigrants are not U.S. citizens and that any plan should only include U.S. citizens. They also suggest that the cost of including legal immigrants would be prohibitive. The truth is that the numbers do not support such claims.
According to the non-partisan Kaiser Foundation, non-citizens have less access to health care and receive less primary health care than U.S. citizens, but they are also less likely to use the emergency room. A July 2009 article in the American Journal of Public Health supports this claim.
According to the Immigration Policy Center, the average immigrant uses less than half the dollar amount of health care services than the average native-born U.S. citizen. This is because they are usually younger, healthier and less likely to use medical services, and due to the fact that U.S. citizens make up 78% of the non-elderly uninsured.
Opponents of the inclusion of legal permanent residents should check their math. When health costs are distributed across a broader pool of people, who in addition tend to use those services less, the overall costs for everyone goes down.
Earlier this year, legal immigrant pregnant women and children became eligible for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). All pregnant women and children, regardless of their immigration status, should receive coverage to ensure that newborns are healthy and children receive regular check ups and vaccinations.
Legal immigrants pay into the system, so they should be able to access the benefits, just like everyone else.
The United States recognized that health care is a universal human right when it signed on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948 (see Article 25). We have, however, a less than convincing record on upholding this right for our population. Forty-seven million uninsured people are a powerful witness against us.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Health Care Site (and Videos) Up!
We announced on Friday that the Conference has launched a Web page promoting the U.S. bishops' position on health care reform.
Along with the various backgrounders, letters from bishops and other information on the topic, the site features a handful of strong Web videos with USCCB staff explaining aspects of Catholic teaching on health care reform.
First is Kathy Saile, director of Domestic Social Development, who gives an overview of the issue.
Following this video, Richard Doerflinger, associate director of Pro-Life Activities, elaborates on protecting the life and dignity of every person by providing some history and context for how abortion fits into the health care reform debate.
Doerflinger gets even more specific in the next video in which he explores the concerns the bishops have with the current House health care reform bill.
He then speaks to the whole issue of health care from a Catholic perspective that is in favor of reform, in favor of universal coverage that includes the poor and immigrants, but which also defends human life from conception till natural death. The way he unifies these ideas as part of a consistent, life-affirming ethic is well done.
Finally, Doerflinger addresses what Catholics can do, noting the need to get involved in the discussion and stand together, saying yes to health care reform, but reform that protects the life and dignity of every person.
Along with the various backgrounders, letters from bishops and other information on the topic, the site features a handful of strong Web videos with USCCB staff explaining aspects of Catholic teaching on health care reform.
First is Kathy Saile, director of Domestic Social Development, who gives an overview of the issue.
Following this video, Richard Doerflinger, associate director of Pro-Life Activities, elaborates on protecting the life and dignity of every person by providing some history and context for how abortion fits into the health care reform debate.
Doerflinger gets even more specific in the next video in which he explores the concerns the bishops have with the current House health care reform bill.
He then speaks to the whole issue of health care from a Catholic perspective that is in favor of reform, in favor of universal coverage that includes the poor and immigrants, but which also defends human life from conception till natural death. The way he unifies these ideas as part of a consistent, life-affirming ethic is well done.
Finally, Doerflinger addresses what Catholics can do, noting the need to get involved in the discussion and stand together, saying yes to health care reform, but reform that protects the life and dignity of every person.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Support vs. Support
The USCCB has come under fire recently for its support of efforts to pass climate change legislation, with some of our policy people getting angry calls and e-mails. I don't mean the climate-change-isn't-real-it's-all-a-conspiracy kind of fire, although our policy people get those calls too. I'm talking about the but-that-bill-is-full-of-pork-and-all-sorts-of-wasteful-spending-how-could-you-ever-support-it kind of fire.
To get to the heart of what is really going on here, it might be good to draw a distinction between support and support, as far as the U.S. Bishops are concerned.
For instance, the only support from the U.S. bishops toward climate change legislation can be found in a June 22 joint letter with Catholic Relief Services to every member of Congress. In the letter, represenatives of the USCCB and CRS welcome the progress that has been made on the issue itself but state that they are "deeply disappointed" that the current legislation doesn't do enough to help poor people worldwide who contribute the least to climate change but suffer the most from its effects. The USCCB news release that accompanied this letter stressed this point.
So where, then, do the bishops stand on this legislation? The facts: we know the Catholic Church supports efforts to combat climate change. This has grown ever more apparent as Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out time and again, most recently in his new encyclical. The U.S. bishops have followed the pope's lead. And in the letter to Congress, they call the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) “groundbreaking legislation” that “begins a serious and overdue effort to face up to moral and environmental challenges and represents an important beginning.”
Yes, that sounds very supportive. But they go on to criticize the legislation heavily for not doing enough for the poor. Does this mean they've endorsed the legislation? Hardly. An endorsement looks more like this, with a bishop actually urging members of Congress to vote for a bill.
Another example of the bishops being supportive in one area but not in another came at the beginning of June when the bishops supported the Reuniting American Families Act (S. 1085) but refused to support similar legislation in the House of Representatives because it contained language that would have extended marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.
The picture that emerges is an encouraging one of bishops who are not willing to sacrifice their principles to achieve political goals, who exercise caution when engaging legislation, and who aren't afraid to throw a bill back and say, "We appreciate what you're trying to do overall, but this isn't good enough. This has pieces we can't support."
This approach should serve the bishops well as they seek to engage Congress on a particularly thorny issue, health care reform. In this case, the USCCB sent Congress a very broad letter, noting the bishops' decades-long support for the cause, outlining their priorities, and emphasizing two general areas -- respect for human life and access for all -- where they see the current legislative efforts needing work.
While far from an endorsement, the USCCB news release on this letter sparked an outraged tirade, on Twitter no less, in which an individual, convinced that health care reform meant a wholesale sellout to the abortion lobby, accused the bishops and myself of throwing the unborn and the taxpayers "to the wolves" in 140-character blasts.
First, I wondered if the person had even read the letter. But after that, it occurred that the guiding principles of the bishops -- cautious engagement, subtle discernment -- are a model for all of us. The bishops recognize that a proposed piece of legislation is a work in progress and that all Catholics, bishops included, are called to engage the political process and be the proverbial prophetic voice, not settling for the status quo when we know it can be better.
In a way, this approach echoes the methodology of a Church that is always calling on its people to do better, to eliminate their destructive behaviors and build on the good in their lives ... until that day when they hear the Lord say, "Well done, good and faithful Congressman--er--servant."
To get to the heart of what is really going on here, it might be good to draw a distinction between support and support, as far as the U.S. Bishops are concerned.
For instance, the only support from the U.S. bishops toward climate change legislation can be found in a June 22 joint letter with Catholic Relief Services to every member of Congress. In the letter, represenatives of the USCCB and CRS welcome the progress that has been made on the issue itself but state that they are "deeply disappointed" that the current legislation doesn't do enough to help poor people worldwide who contribute the least to climate change but suffer the most from its effects. The USCCB news release that accompanied this letter stressed this point.
So where, then, do the bishops stand on this legislation? The facts: we know the Catholic Church supports efforts to combat climate change. This has grown ever more apparent as Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out time and again, most recently in his new encyclical. The U.S. bishops have followed the pope's lead. And in the letter to Congress, they call the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) “groundbreaking legislation” that “begins a serious and overdue effort to face up to moral and environmental challenges and represents an important beginning.”
Yes, that sounds very supportive. But they go on to criticize the legislation heavily for not doing enough for the poor. Does this mean they've endorsed the legislation? Hardly. An endorsement looks more like this, with a bishop actually urging members of Congress to vote for a bill.
Another example of the bishops being supportive in one area but not in another came at the beginning of June when the bishops supported the Reuniting American Families Act (S. 1085) but refused to support similar legislation in the House of Representatives because it contained language that would have extended marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.
The picture that emerges is an encouraging one of bishops who are not willing to sacrifice their principles to achieve political goals, who exercise caution when engaging legislation, and who aren't afraid to throw a bill back and say, "We appreciate what you're trying to do overall, but this isn't good enough. This has pieces we can't support."
This approach should serve the bishops well as they seek to engage Congress on a particularly thorny issue, health care reform. In this case, the USCCB sent Congress a very broad letter, noting the bishops' decades-long support for the cause, outlining their priorities, and emphasizing two general areas -- respect for human life and access for all -- where they see the current legislative efforts needing work.
While far from an endorsement, the USCCB news release on this letter sparked an outraged tirade, on Twitter no less, in which an individual, convinced that health care reform meant a wholesale sellout to the abortion lobby, accused the bishops and myself of throwing the unborn and the taxpayers "to the wolves" in 140-character blasts.
First, I wondered if the person had even read the letter. But after that, it occurred that the guiding principles of the bishops -- cautious engagement, subtle discernment -- are a model for all of us. The bishops recognize that a proposed piece of legislation is a work in progress and that all Catholics, bishops included, are called to engage the political process and be the proverbial prophetic voice, not settling for the status quo when we know it can be better.
In a way, this approach echoes the methodology of a Church that is always calling on its people to do better, to eliminate their destructive behaviors and build on the good in their lives ... until that day when they hear the Lord say, "Well done, good and faithful Congressman--er--servant."
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Make Health Care Reform Abortion Neutral
The nation struggles to reform health care, and concerns range from how to fund health care to the role of the federal government in health care to whether to insure American children born to undocumented persons.
Stunningly, the country’s abortion lobby wants to mire the debate by using it to promote abortion. They want to make it a required health benefit – I’m not sure to benefit whom. It doesn’t benefit unborn children, and you can make a good case that it doesn’t benefit their mothers either, given all the regrets afterwards.
When the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 voted to permit abortion as a matter of privacy, people predicted that arguments over abortion would split the nation in two.
Were they ever right! There’s never been an issue in modern times to have such an effect. The nationwide moral upheaval that has ensued since then speaks to the visceral nature of the issue. It just does not sit well with people.
To attach abortion rights to health care reform is to guarantee the failure of health care reform.
Health care reform needs to be abortion neutral. It’s about pregnant women having pre-natal care, children getting vaccinations, oldsters getting blood pressure medication and middle-agers having cancer screening. It’s about all Americans having decent health care so that they aren’t forced to choose between buying cereal for breakfast or antibiotics for strep throat.
Health care reform is not about terminating pregnancies. Americans do not want to pay for other people’s elective abortions. Current laws only allow federal dollars to go for abortion in cases of rape or incest or threat to the life of the mother. Moral objections to abortion run deep.
The well-funded abortion lobby that seeks to make abortion a sine qua non for health care reform puts all of us at risk as the abortion lobbyists cavalierly promote a political agenda guaranteed to worsen the situation of health care in the United States.
The nation’s health care crisis needs to be addressed. Making sure the legislation is abortion-neutral takes one huge obstacle out of the way.
Stunningly, the country’s abortion lobby wants to mire the debate by using it to promote abortion. They want to make it a required health benefit – I’m not sure to benefit whom. It doesn’t benefit unborn children, and you can make a good case that it doesn’t benefit their mothers either, given all the regrets afterwards.
When the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 voted to permit abortion as a matter of privacy, people predicted that arguments over abortion would split the nation in two.
Were they ever right! There’s never been an issue in modern times to have such an effect. The nationwide moral upheaval that has ensued since then speaks to the visceral nature of the issue. It just does not sit well with people.
To attach abortion rights to health care reform is to guarantee the failure of health care reform.
Health care reform needs to be abortion neutral. It’s about pregnant women having pre-natal care, children getting vaccinations, oldsters getting blood pressure medication and middle-agers having cancer screening. It’s about all Americans having decent health care so that they aren’t forced to choose between buying cereal for breakfast or antibiotics for strep throat.
Health care reform is not about terminating pregnancies. Americans do not want to pay for other people’s elective abortions. Current laws only allow federal dollars to go for abortion in cases of rape or incest or threat to the life of the mother. Moral objections to abortion run deep.
The well-funded abortion lobby that seeks to make abortion a sine qua non for health care reform puts all of us at risk as the abortion lobbyists cavalierly promote a political agenda guaranteed to worsen the situation of health care in the United States.
The nation’s health care crisis needs to be addressed. Making sure the legislation is abortion-neutral takes one huge obstacle out of the way.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Unprecedented Dialogue Bears Very Specific Fruit
I recently had the unique experience of sitting in on a conference call in person, as the USCCB's Department of Justice, Peace and Human Development facilitated the announcement of some "guidance and options" that emerged as a document, Respecting the Just Rights of Workers: Guidance and Options for Catholic Health Care and Unions, from the unprecedented dialogue between the U.S. bishops, Catholic health care and labor leaders. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop Emeritus of Washington, moderated both the dialogue and the phone conference.
America Magazine has already blogged on the session, capturing quite a bit of its content and flavor.
The aim of the "guidance and options" dialogue and document was to create a fair process for Catholic health care workers to decide whether or not to form a union. This involved a long process of getting Catholic bishops, Catholic health care leaders and labor leaders to find common ground informed by Catholic social teaching.
Ultimately, the document proffers seven key principles of appropriate conduct between employers and union representatives:
-- demonstrate respect for each other’s organization and mission
-- provide workers with equal access to information from both sides
-- adhere to standards for truthfulness and balance in their communications
-- create a pressure-free environment
-- allow workers to vote through a fair and expeditious process
-- honor employees’ decision regardless of the outcome
-- create a system for enforcing these principles during the course of an organizing drive
That last point about enforcement raised a question from a reporter if these measures were going to be enforced by the dialogue panel that produced them. It was quickly noted that the document's "guidance and options" were just that and therefore non-binding. The point of non-binding seemed to elicit a tone of "well then, what's the point?" in the reporter's voice.
The points, it turned out, were several. First, Cardinal McCarrick pointed out, the document wasn't binding because the panel was not in authority to bind (trust a man who's participated in a conclave to know a little something about conferring the power to bind). That is, none of the organizations involved owed any sort of allegiance to the dialogue panel. But, it was then raised, those very organizations and institutions had come forward years ago and asked that a document of this sort be created. So, now that it's been made a reality, why would they not want to adopt its principles?
I believe it was Sister Carol Keehan of the Catholic Hospital Association who raised the point that these principles, though non-binding, reflect solid Catholic social teaching and would be in the best interest of any organization to implement.
So, while the unionization of Catholic health care workers may be a little on the esoteric side for some of us, this is still a happy instance of dialogue and working toward common ground bearing fruit for the benefit of all involved.
America Magazine has already blogged on the session, capturing quite a bit of its content and flavor.
The aim of the "guidance and options" dialogue and document was to create a fair process for Catholic health care workers to decide whether or not to form a union. This involved a long process of getting Catholic bishops, Catholic health care leaders and labor leaders to find common ground informed by Catholic social teaching.
Ultimately, the document proffers seven key principles of appropriate conduct between employers and union representatives:
-- demonstrate respect for each other’s organization and mission
-- provide workers with equal access to information from both sides
-- adhere to standards for truthfulness and balance in their communications
-- create a pressure-free environment
-- allow workers to vote through a fair and expeditious process
-- honor employees’ decision regardless of the outcome
-- create a system for enforcing these principles during the course of an organizing drive
That last point about enforcement raised a question from a reporter if these measures were going to be enforced by the dialogue panel that produced them. It was quickly noted that the document's "guidance and options" were just that and therefore non-binding. The point of non-binding seemed to elicit a tone of "well then, what's the point?" in the reporter's voice.
The points, it turned out, were several. First, Cardinal McCarrick pointed out, the document wasn't binding because the panel was not in authority to bind (trust a man who's participated in a conclave to know a little something about conferring the power to bind). That is, none of the organizations involved owed any sort of allegiance to the dialogue panel. But, it was then raised, those very organizations and institutions had come forward years ago and asked that a document of this sort be created. So, now that it's been made a reality, why would they not want to adopt its principles?
I believe it was Sister Carol Keehan of the Catholic Hospital Association who raised the point that these principles, though non-binding, reflect solid Catholic social teaching and would be in the best interest of any organization to implement.
So, while the unionization of Catholic health care workers may be a little on the esoteric side for some of us, this is still a happy instance of dialogue and working toward common ground bearing fruit for the benefit of all involved.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
If Conscience Protection Goes, What's Next?
Lots of nervousness around with the Obama Administration’s wish to rescind Health and Human Services regulations that guarantee conscience protection for health care workers. It certainly ought to make historians antsy. Our nation was founded for religious liberty, sought by both Protestants and Catholics centuries ago.
The regs the Administration seeks to abolish merely support freedom of conscience, so why rescind them? Does rescinding these regs suggest other rights will be eroded soon afterwards?
Conscience matters, and, personally, I’d rather have someone with a sensitive conscience providing my medical care than someone who goes mindlessly on his/her way ignoring the effects of his/her work.
Conscientious objectors to killing in wartime always have been protected and defended by the U.S. government. In recent times, medical personnel rightly object to giving lethal injections in prison. That’s within their rights. It’s easy to see that were someone to provide prisoners medical care with one needle, he/she would feel squeamish about taking a prisoner’s life with another (let alone what the prisoners might think).
Clearly the rights of medical personnel and institutions who cannot participate in ending a life as part of their calling to serve and do no harm ought to be protected. More info can be found on the conscience protection page of the USCCB Web site.
Citizens have until April 9 to voice their concern about rescinding the conscience protection regulations. Info on how to do so can be found at the Web address above.
The regs the Administration seeks to abolish merely support freedom of conscience, so why rescind them? Does rescinding these regs suggest other rights will be eroded soon afterwards?
Conscience matters, and, personally, I’d rather have someone with a sensitive conscience providing my medical care than someone who goes mindlessly on his/her way ignoring the effects of his/her work.
Conscientious objectors to killing in wartime always have been protected and defended by the U.S. government. In recent times, medical personnel rightly object to giving lethal injections in prison. That’s within their rights. It’s easy to see that were someone to provide prisoners medical care with one needle, he/she would feel squeamish about taking a prisoner’s life with another (let alone what the prisoners might think).
Clearly the rights of medical personnel and institutions who cannot participate in ending a life as part of their calling to serve and do no harm ought to be protected. More info can be found on the conscience protection page of the USCCB Web site.
Citizens have until April 9 to voice their concern about rescinding the conscience protection regulations. Info on how to do so can be found at the Web address above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
