The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionChecking the fact check on health reform
May. 24, 2010
Three U.S. bishops pose for photo for a Catholic Health Association campaign in Washington in May 2009. Pictured from left are Bishops Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, N.Y.; David L. Ricken of Green Bay, Wis; and Howard J. Hubbard of Albany, N.Y. (CNS/Nancy Wiechec)
VIEWPOINT
In his recent analysis, “Fact checked: The U.S. bishops on health care reform” (NCR, April 30), Jerry Filteau acknowledges important areas where the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is right about abortion problems in the final legislation. However, he also gets some facts wrong, and presents some arguable predictions or assumptions as though they are facts.
Some things are minor details: While the language of the Hyde amendment did some changing back and forth in its early years, Henry Hyde’s reluctant decision to change it himself to allow funding for rape/incest abortions (a policy lasting to this day) was in 1993, not 1977; the final health care bill passed the House 219 to 212, not 220 to 211; law professor Timothy Jost, whom Filteau calls “a strong pro-life advocate,” criticized the Stupak amendment when it passed the House in November with the strong support of the pro-life community, publicly warning that the Catholic church’s influence on this issue risks making the United States into “another Iran.”
More substantively, Filteau criticizes the bishops in two areas: the legislation’s federal subsidies for health plans covering abortion, and its creation of a new avenue for direct federal funding of abortion.
Cardinal Francis George as the bishops’ conference president has said that the new law provides for one plan in each state exchange that will exclude elective abortions (that is, abortions beyond cases of life endangerment or rape/incest), but that all other plans “can” include these abortions and receive federal tax credits.
Filteau criticizes George for saying that all but one plan must cover abortions, but that’s not what the cardinal actually said. Instead he was pointing to the new law’s tragic reversal of a long-standing pro-life policy: Right now the number of health plans covering elective abortions that may receive federal subsidies is zero; after this law takes full effect that number can go up to “all but one” in each state. Filteau is correct in saying that a state may opt out of the federal policy by passing a new law to prohibit private abortion coverage on its exchange altogether; but the new law does not create such authority in the states, as they always had it. What’s new here is that the federal policy now supports abortion -- and states must follow that policy, unless they can work up the political support to enact the opposite policy.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
Filteau predicts that most health insurers will simply choose to exclude abortion from their plans anyway. But the fact is that many (some studies say most) insurers choose to include it, although in doing so they swim directly against the tide created by all federal health programs. They think it’s a great cost-saver, because abortion is so much cheaper for them to cover than childbirth (and enormously cheaper than adding a new dependent for 18 years, now increased by the new law to 26 years, to a family’s health plan). Even when some big insurers sell plans to the 8 million people in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and are required to exclude abortion from those plans (because they are subsidized with federal funds), those insurers still choose to include abortion in their other plans. Now the federal tide will reverse, to subsidize abortion-including plans for the first time. Can we assume that private health plans will now tend to exclude abortion when they didn’t before?
In this regard Filteau points out rightly that the new law will require insurers that cover abortions to collect a separate fee from every single enrollee to help pay for them, without making an accommodation for anyone (sec. 1303 (b)(2)(B)). Then he predicts that many enrollees, alerted to this gratuitous extra fee for something they don’t want, will protest, and the insurers will back down and exclude abortion. But it is hardly a recommendation in favor of the new law to say that it is so bad it may provoke a backlash. Bad laws should be opposed before they pass. And the law itself does everything possible to hide the abortion coverage from enrollees, while still forcing them to pay for it. The law forbids insurers to notify people about abortion being included, except in the fine print where all other benefits are listed; and it demands that the insurer, the state exchange, and the federal government provide information “only with respect to the total amount of the combined payments” for abortion and all other services (Sec. 1303 (b)(3)).
Yes, many people will be forced to choose between their family’s specific health needs and their conscience on abortion -- but this law makes it difficult if not impossible for them to know in a given case that the government is forcing this terrible dilemma on them. This in a reform bill that was supposed to increase transparency, and elevate consumers’ needs over those of the insurance companies.
On the prospect of direct funding of abortion under the new law, for example at Community Health Centers, Filteau replies that the centers haven’t done abortions before and cannot legally do so. However, the new health care law does not follow current law regarding Community Health Centers. The authorizing legislation for these centers, Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, requires them to provide certain “essential” services such as “family planning” and “gynecology” services.
A long line of federal court decisions has declared that such broad categories must be read as including abortions, unless the legislation states otherwise. That is why Medicaid, which requires provision of “family planning” services, was required by the courts to fund 300,000 abortions a year -- until Congress added the Hyde amendment to the annual Labor/Health and Human Services appropriations bill to prevent this. Community Health Centers, as well, have been funded until now by this Labor/HHS bill and therefore covered by Hyde. Now Congress has passed a health care law that authorizes a new separate Community Health Centers Fund, and directly appropriates billions of dollars for that fund -- bypassing the entire Labor/HHS bill and the Hyde amendment that governs the funds in it. And the new law itself neither references, nor contains, any Hyde-type language covering these funds.
Filteau suggests that the bishops are upset because the Hyde amendment has to be enacted every year and hence does not provide a permanent fix. Certainly permanent is better than temporary. But our central concern here is that these new funds are not covered by Hyde at all, or by any statutory limitation on their use for abortions (temporary or permanent).
We may hope that one day the federal courts will reverse their long line of cases, or will begin reading phrases like “family planning” in the Community Health Centers law differently from the way they have always read them in Medicaid. But we have no legal or factual basis for expecting such a dramatic reversal. Nor have we seen a basis for claiming that President Obama’s new executive order, disclaiming any intent to fund abortions, will trump a statutory mandate as construed by these federal courts. The expectation grounded in the present facts is that the courts will do what they have done before in cases that in relevant aspects are the same.
Filteau rightly says that the “take it or leave it” posture by the Senate regarding its flawed bill placed the bishops (frankly, it placed all who support universal health care and the pro-life message) in an unenviable position. But his statement that the bishops’ reaction was to express “unalterable opposition to the entire health care reform bill” is misleading. Clearly and repeatedly, they said Congress must continue to pursue health care reform, but that this particular version of the bill was so deeply flawed on fundamental issues of life and conscience (as well as on fairness to immigrants) that it should be opposed “unless and until” Congress found a way to fix it. Congress lacked the political will to do this in March, and so the problems must be fixed in the months and years to come.
But if the bishops had declared that the problems are not so serious after all, that would have undermined their principled position and made the future task all but impossible. The bishops were consistent in their position and maintained their moral and intellectual integrity as teachers in the church from the beginning to the end of the process. With the legislation enacted, everyone who agrees there are problems here can join the bishops in seeing this task through to completion, to produce a health care system that truly respects the life, health and conscience of all.
[Mercy Sr. Mary Ann Walsh is director for media relations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington.]
Just some questions: Wouldn't
Just some questions:
Wouldn't it be nice if the bishops cared as much about people who were already born as they do for fetuses?
Should those without coverage or those unable to afford coverage submit their medical bills to diocesan chancerys in the meantime?
If abortion is legal, the law of the land,then why should the government deny funding for that which is considered legal? Is this a Catholic country?
If we care so much about life, where is the outrage to the military budget?
I do agree with your premise.
I do agree with your premise. You ask good questions that Bishops and pro-life people will never answer.
The reality is that abortions are not only legal, but they have ocurred since the begining of times in back rooms and non-steril environments, here and around the world. It is a sad reality that I doubt a "Catholic law" will change in a multicultural and multireligious country as ours. Catholic teachings are that: teachings. They cannot be imposed in a democratic nation. Abortion is murder, but so it is the death penalty, the poverty and hunger and wars that kill so many because we, Catholics, are only now "fixed" on abortion and less in social justice and peace.
The Spirit is alive and we have to pray for enlightment.
You're missing the point. The
You're missing the point. The USCCB has, for a long time, been in support of changing the health insurance system. But it makes no sense to be in support of something that largely hurts a group of people in support of another group. If it was discovered that by allowing the mass extermination of Hispanics, the rest of the country could benefit, would you be for it? I hope not.
Very few bishops have a problem with helping those that cannot afford health insurance. But to give support to something that helps for the mass murder of other people seems a little... wrong.
Your question about abortion being legal and so money going to support it reminds me of the Holocaust. The Nazi government allowed it to be legal, the law of the land, to kills Jews, gays, gypsies, and many more people. I pose the same question to you, then, why should the government deny funding for that which is considered legal? I'm proud that many Catholic priests and bishops, religious and laity, lost their lives fighting and not supporting those laws (Father Kolbe comes to mind).
Good for you, Brett! I share
Good for you, Brett! I share your sentiments which were expressed very well.
Congratulations and may the Holy Spirit continue to inspire you. Thanks!
You have got to be kidding
You have got to be kidding me? Are you for real?
Who is "allowing mass extermination" by passing health care reform? It is people like you who allow murders of all kind to take place by denying millions of people the health care reform they need.
And by the way fetus are not human beings yet. They aren't people and can never be classified as such. This is why abortion will always be legal in an educated, thinking society.
BISHOPS and now NUNS need to
BISHOPS and now NUNS need to get out of America's BEDROOMS!
And I would be thrilled if
And I would be thrilled if the inhabitants of "America's BEDROOMS" would get their hands out of my pockets and keep their hands off my WALLET.
WHY? So you and other
WHY?
So you and other foolishly blind GOP sheep can keep BANK-ROLLING the HIGHER-ARCHS and bank-rupting the lower-archs?
When the Church looks at the
When the Church looks at the way that children in Haiti are used as slaves, as early as 5 & 6 years old to do household chores, in a serious manner things will change. The parents who are almost all Catholic do not use family planning (contraceptives not including abortions)and these parents can not afford to raise their children even at such young ages. This is as bad as the rape withing the Church and the hiding of the rapists by the Bishops. This is a time for change.
With the use of contraceptives, there would be work for adults and children could be children. Such a simple solution. What are we waiting for?
What would happen to the aids epidemic if the church were to promote the correct contraceptive?
This is a universal problem.
There has never been a single
There has never been a single contraception campaign that has shown evidence that is has decreased the spread of aids. There has been fidelity campaings that have given evidence that they help decrease the spread of aids.
Sr Walsh does not mention the
Sr Walsh does not mention the Executive Order that the President signed banning federal funding for elective abortions. What part of that is unclear? That the government ban would be ineffective?
This sounds like the Bishops are trying to salvage some face with the people of their Church and with the American people.
Actually, yes she does: "Nor
Actually, yes she does:
"Nor have we seen a basis for claiming that President Obama’s new executive order, disclaiming any intent to fund abortions, will trump a statutory mandate as construed by these federal courts. The expectation grounded in the present facts is that the courts will do what they have done before in cases that in relevant aspects are the same."
Oh, my bad. You are right, I
Oh, my bad. You are right, I did not read closely enough.
Still, the germane point remains: the assertion is, the Bishops do not believe the ban will be upheld by the courts. Is that one of the pillars of argument?
wait, so, you can't be
wait, so, you can't be pro-life if you criticize the Stupak amendment and the USCCB?
I've always understood the Catholic definition of being pro-life to be opposing abortion and other threats to life (poverty, war) in the most thorough and effective ways possible. Agreeing with every political position of the USCCB has never been part of the criteria. The USCCB's conflation of their own legal analysis (which, unlike their teaching on faith and morals has no special authority) with what it means to be "pro-life" is, in a word, troubling.
Sr. Walsh is director of
Sr. Walsh is director of media relations for a propaganda arm of the Republican Party of No — otherwise known as the USCCB. Various of the most vocal and dominant of the members of this conference published their own open letters in support of free-market sickness and death for profit, and their denial of health care (or prenatal care) being a basic human right. Other of these bishops have been photographed at Republican Party fundraisers, and then attempting to coerce Catholics into voting for their GOP pals — the same party who publicly stated their intent to “kill health care reform in order to bring down the [democratic] president”. The USCCB branded themselves as shameless political partisans.
.
Unfortunately, Sr. Walsh’s resurrection of health care reform scare tactics in behalf of her bench of bishops is frankly, disingenuous. Her/their talking points have been raised and successfully refuted multiple times. There is no point in plowing that ground again. Had the USCCB not prostituted themselves as obstructive lobbyists on Capitol Hill and agents of partisan disinformation, we might have actually gotten a better bill with single payer or a public option. Now, like their GOP confreres, they want to overturn the legislation obtained in spite of them. ‘Guess ongoing petty paybacks toward the women religious who supported reform has not been enough to adequately salve their bruised adolescent egos. Oops, forgot… midterm elections are forthcoming… that explains this political resurrection.
.
Protests of concern for an embryo or fetus ring hollow when these men demonstrate so little regard or compassion for already born women and children. In their alternate world, women are disposable incubators and minors are acceptable sex toys for clergy. The bishops’ time would be better spent cleaning up the moral depravity and criminal governance problems within their own brotherhood of bishops — but they won’t. They voted to exempt themselves from the provisions of their own 2002 Charter.
.
The only venue in which a bishop has any canonical authority is in his own diocese. Instead of meddling everywhere else, dabbling in politics and posturing for cameras, each man should return to his own diocese, get out in the pastoral trenches of the real world and get his pristine manicured hands dirty with some real work. They might learn something about reality, or at the very least, they might EARN the trust, credibility and respect they presently lack. Merely holding the apostolic office isn't good enough.
.
Over the past decade I've gradually come to the same conclusion as so many other life-long Catholics: Who cares what these men think or have to say. They aren't THE Church, ...just a small, pampered and increasingly destructive part of it.
I always thought the RC stood
I always thought the RC stood for Roman Catholic -- who knew it was actually Republican Committee?
I am dismayed by the USCCB's
I am dismayed by the USCCB's continued narrow approach to healthcare reform. This whole debate involves around a highly technical discussion of whether the pro-life provisions in the legislature are sufficient to keep public funds from each incidence of abortion. I think they are, the USCCB thinks otherwise, but this is a prudential reading of particular legislative language, combined with an executive order. Throughout, I see the bishops approach the issue with the same "hermeneutic of suspicion" that characterizes the hard-core right, those that will always assume Obama is plotting nefariously to expand abortion while pretending it is healthcare. And they are constantly on the same page as the highly partisan NRLC.
I see precious little concern with the scandal of so many millions suffering, dying, and going bankrupt because they have no access to healthcare. I see little discussion of the relationship between abortion and poverty - and the choices available to a poor uninsured woman who is faced with $25,000 childbirth costs or a $400 abortion. I see few challenges being made to those who oppose healthcare reform on libertarian grounds, and oppose the solidarity that underpins Catholic social teaching.
See here my longer take on the USCCB's mistakes: http://vox-nova.com/2010/05/17/looking-back-with-bart-stupak/
If they could have produced
If they could have produced just one Catholic Republican Senator to vote for cloture on the conference report, any outstanding issues could have been easily worked out. They should not blame us for their political impotence.
Michael, blaming is one of
Michael, blaming is one of their specialties... it is easier than looking at their own interior life & cleaning up their own mess.
The health care debate left
The health care debate left me profoundly disappointed in the bishops. This was the most serious effort in a decade to provide health care for all, and the bishops' voices should have been among the loudest crying out for -- insisting upon -- health care for those unable to afford it as a basic human right. Instead, all one heard from the bishops was abortion, abortion, abortion, as though that were the sum and total of the pending legislation. Instead of throwing in with the "kill the bill" crowd, how much more Christ-like it would have been to lead the charge for health care reform, trumpeting its expansion of care for all, while working quietly to ensure that the final legislation would protect both the born and the unborn. The entire distasteful episode left me thinking that the bishops were more interested in scoring political points with their increasingly conservative base than they were in actually seeing health care reform enacted.
SR. WALSH CAN obfuscate the
SR. WALSH CAN obfuscate the minor issues any way she wants for her employer bishops, the big picture is the fact that the U.S. bishops failed to help millions of Catholic poor and middle class plus millions of other needy Americans because they engaged in the politics of abortion.
There was no compromise and no respect for those who disagreed with them. If the bishops were the rulers of this country, millions of Americans would no longer be free to let their conscience be a guide.
They would be required by law to subject themselves to the moral quirks of the bishops who do not have to suffer unwanted pregnancies or beg for health care. If the bishops were rulers, even non-Catholics could not buy contraceptives, condoms, get a divorce or, sadly, have an abortion if necessary to save the life of the mother. Read about Phoenix, Arizona, where a bishop excommunicated a hospital nun. Read about Malta recently praised by the pope for prohibiting divorce.
Fellow Catholics, if you ever need medical care in the future and one of the new health programs helps you; remember that the bishops abandoned you in your hour of need. Never, ever give them a dime of your money!
As I asked in the earlier
As I asked in the earlier story, don't most dioceses buy their health insurance from an entity such as Blue Cross or Aetna? I realize that they do not cover abortion in their policies, but isn't their money comingled with the premiums paid by policy holders that do cover abortion? How is this any better than what the Feds are proposing to do in the new law? It seems to me that the new law tries harder to segregate the money than what private insurers courrently do.
The tax exclusion for health
The tax exclusion for health care in both current law and in law before the recent passage of reform covered abortion. There was no application of the Hyde Amendment to this subsidy and it is not terribly different than the new tax credit. Of course, the vast majority of abortions are paid for with cash, not insurance.
Everytime you go to McDonalds, some of your money is going to a pimply faced kid who is saving up for his girlfriend's abortion (or the girl behind the counter may be about to pay for her own). Anytime you pay for services from the working poor, some of that money will wind up paying for an abortion.
The answer is not to stop buying such services. It was to pass reform.
I suggest to the author that if she and the Bishops want the help of Catholic progressives in the unlikley event some of their fears are realized (including in the area of community health centers), that they quit rehashing their defeat and knock out the sour grapes. The more you defend yourselves, the sillier you look.
The sad fact of the matter is still that the final bill could have been fixed if the USCCB had enough game to promise one GOP vote for cloture on an amended Senate bill. If you had done that, the changes you requested would have gone through without muss or fuss. Don't blame progressives for your lack of influence with your own allies.
You need to mend relationships with progressive Catholics or your job will be a lot harder when you need consensus.
Give ME a choice! It's legal
Give ME a choice!
It's legal - I despise it and can't see how by any measure of reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence that one could possibly consider abortion to be anything but murder (by the way, I don't need religion to tell me that). You have to be a complete and total idiot to believe otherwise. So, that's where we need to focus our efforts and our resources - proving that it's murder.
But for this matter, and as long as abortion is legal, I wish they would consider having a coverage option of "with or without elective abortion" in the policy. You can get health insurance "with or without vision care," or "with or without prescription coverage." If elective abortion is such an innocuous procedure as you would have us believe, then why would you be embarrassed to select it?
If you want to call yourself "pro-choice," then give the rest of us a choice.
And by the way, I'm what many consider to be a far left wing Catholic!
Abortion is legal, because
Abortion is legal, because making it not so would not stop many abortions. Law must be effective or it is meaningless. It is up to those who would use the law to end abortion to say how it would happen and to deal with the messy details - like when to recognize the fetus legally and the impacts on tort and criminal law of doing some. Most of the movement lacks the emotional maturity to deal with these issues, which is why legal abortion continues.
Oh, who gives a hoot about
Oh, who gives a hoot about being excommunicated by a bunch of dorks in Rome? Not me. They're like Don Quixote tilting at windmills.
And I love every one of those old nuns who push your buttons!
I agree with the comments of
I agree with the comments of many of those who have taken the Bishops message about the health care bill to task for their misinformation. The USBBC is again confusing the public and especially the Catholics about what the bill will do for the millions of Americans who do not have health coverage now. An article in COMMONWEAL MAGAZINE, 5/25/2010, entitled "Episcopal Oversight: How the Bishops Conference Gets Health-care Legislation Wrong," should be read by everyone who wants the facts about the bill. The bishops should especially read this article since it might help them to better understand the legislation. I also agree that the USCCB appears to have taken up the republican positions on almost every social issue. It appears that pro-life groups and the bishops don't worry about the truth or facts. These attacks on the President certainly stir up the conservative and regardless what the President may do these people will be against him. I am against abortion but I also realize that there are many people in this country who do not agree with me about abortion. I have a question that I wish someone would answer. When a baby in the womb is aborted through natural causes, is this an abortion? Who is responsible for this death? Since the beginning of time, I imagine women have lost babies before their natural nine month term ends. Is this part of Natural Law? As Christians we need to pray for all women who have abortion and pray for the babies who are aborted. We also need to pray that we will have fewer abortions. It is possible that if the health care bill is successful it might actually reduce the number of abortion.
What is wrong with American
What is wrong with American Catholic clergy and sisters who are influenced by self serving pompous bishops? Do they not see the whole picture of what universal health care will do to those who have no health care at all? The common good for the most people is the way they should be looking at this issue, instead of from their conservative Republican ideologies. Abortion is never a correct moral choice, but it does happen in the real world. Ask them to visit the homeless shelters, or the Food Pantries and see the people who have lost their jobs, hence health care and listen to the stories of need. Might make them open their hearts to the human needs that exist in the REAL world!
I agree with so much of what
I agree with so much of what has been said here. As a Catholic who lives in Bishop Olmsted's diocese in Phoenix where the Catholic nun was 'excommunicated' for saving the life of a mother (the choice was to let both the mom and the fetus die or to abort the fetus which was not yet viable, and save the life of the mom who already had 4 children), Sister Margaret McBride made the very difficult decision to at least save one life-that of the mom. Sister Margaret used her medical expertise as a nurse and administrator and her Catholic conscience based on canon law to save the life of the mom. We hear so much about not only abortion but the right of conscience. Does this right of conscience apply only to the bishop, not to this good nun, known by those at St Joe's Hospital, as a very moral, very compassionate nun? Bishop Thomas Olmsted has no heart. When Maine was trying to reverse the rights of gays to marry, Bishop Olmsted in this very tough economic times, when people don't have healthcare or jobs, chose to send $50,000 to the Diocese of Maine. Bishop Olmsted and the USCCB are uncaring hypocrites. I will not give any money to any Catholic cause that could be used by Bishop Olmsted or the USCCB. There are plenty of worthwhile charities I can and do contribute to.
Post new comment