The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionSr. Mary Ann is Wrong
by Michael Sean Winters on May. 25, 2010
Sister Mary Ann Walsh of the USCCB, writing in reply to NCR’s coverage of the health care debate, has done the best she can with a bad hand. Her article repeats arguments the USCCB made in their opposition to the health care bill, and states those arguments as persuasively as they can be stated. But, they do not persuade.
There are two difficulties. First, on the application of the Hyde Amendment, the USCCB refuses to acknowledge that the original Stupak Amendment went beyond Hyde in its consequences. The actuary for the insurance companies said as much during negotiations: The language would have resulted in insurance companies being unable to offer abortion coverage in plans paid for entirely without federal subsidies but purchased on the exchanges. At the time, the USCCB was content to say that they could not predict what insurance companies would do, and that there was no statutory prevention of such policies. Now, the USCCB relies on just such projections to justify its opposition to the bill. What neither the USCCB nor the pro-choice advocates wanted to admit was that fitting Hyde to the health care exchanges was more complicated than it appears.
As well, the USCCB has to choose which argument it wants to make. Either it is unjust that people should have to pay for abortion coverage with their own money in the exchanges, because there is no individual opt-out, or the coverage is being funded by federal funds. It can’t be both. Yet, Sr. Mary Ann uses both arguments in her article.
Finally, there is the concern about whether or not monies that go to the community health centers will cover abortion. The USCCB is not satisfied that these health centers do not, never have, and have no intention of providing abortions. They insist that they could be forced to do so, and cite several court rulings that support such a conclusion. But, they forget about the little noticed parliamentary procedure that occurred on the floor of the House during the final day of debate. There was a colloquy. Congressman Bart Stupak and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer referred to this concern, and to the President’s Executive Order stating that the funds for community health centers would not be used to pay for abortions. The reason for the colloquy was to ensure that if pro-choice groups bring a suit to force the community health centers to do what they have no intention of doing, a court would have to look to the legislative intent of the law, and that the intent of this funding was clearly not to provide funding for abortions. The USCCB’s failure to acknowledge this does not inspire confidence in their conclusions about this legislation.
well. was Walsh wrong or the
well. was Walsh wrong or the USCCB?
the finale begs this question
Both, Sr. Mary Ann is merely
Both, Sr. Mary Ann is merely the mouthpiece of the USCCB.
The election midterms are
The election midterms are fast approaching. Resurrecting this health care reform red herring fits right in with the GOP talking points related to their fond hopes of "overturning" reform legislation — they still believe: "kill health care reform to take down the [democratic] president" (DeMint, R-SC and his Catholic bishop choir). The naysayers are indeed persistent.
.
The USCCB sends out Sr. Walsh to stir the disinformation pot in an effort to coerce Catholic votes for their confreres in the Republican Party. The timing isn't even a little bit subtle.
What dancing around the
What dancing around the question by friends of Obama for whom a little more, a little less abortion is just not that problematic to the "common good."
Vatican II calls the extermination of the innocent unborn an "unspeakable crime." Those are not the words of the horrible Popes that have managed to elude the Holy Spirit and been foisted upon the Church since 1965. Those are not the words of Curia. They are the words of the GREAT SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, whose spirit has been invoked (and misrepresented) in the name of "true" Catholicism. So if killing babies before they are born is an "unspeakable crime," pardon me if I am not particularly concerned whether the thirty pieces of silver come from the U.S. Treasury directly, or the U.S. Treasury indirectly (since money is fungible) through subsidies, accounting legerdemain, etc. Obamacare now wants us to pay for murder, subsidized by taxpayer dollars, with the blessing of the "amen crowd" including Sr. Walsh.
As for the significance of the "colloquy" -- the courts apply the law as written. Winks and nods between Bart Stupak and Harry Reid, hugs and kisses between Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, or rescindable executive orders by Barack Obama do not change what is (or isn't) in statutory language. Which is why all this winking and nodding and signing means nothing more than an assorted set of twitches to look the other way as unborn child twitch in pain as victims of an "unspeakable" crime about which the "common Good" crowd chooses not to speak.
All one has to do is ask the
All one has to do is ask the following:
'Have the US bishops taken upon themselves the work that rightly belongs to the laity?'
'Do the bishops trust the laity, who constituents of the People of God, the Body of Christ, to do the work of making the world into the Kingdom of God.?'
'Does the mandate to preach and teach mean also to sabatage legislation, or strong arm legislators to interpret legislation or laws from their own analysis and ethical filters?'
'Has the USCCB become a lobbying group? If so, what does the People of God have to do to bring these errant bishops back into the fold?'
My own answers to these questions are such that I know that the USCCB and its constituent bishops are misquided and have been badly behvaving. The People of God are coresponsible for the Churcha and its life and work, which means that we are responsible for the bishops, and the effects of their behaviour in the world.
She's just FOLLOWING ORDERS,
She's just FOLLOWING ORDERS, the same way the head of CMSWR did when she called out the CHA and LCWR on health care reform:
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/some-nuns-denounce-health-reform-bill
Post new comment