Several years ago I was asked, as a local Catholic layman, to serve on Providence Hospital’s board. I declined, because as editorial page editor, I presided over the formation of opinion regarding some highly controversial issues involving local hospitals. It was tough enough taking the heat for siding with Providence on some Certificate of Need fights without the other local hospitals claiming we only did so because I was on that institution’s board. (They would have been confusing cause and effect, but it still would have been awkward.)
Now, I feel free to offer my services, and it looks like there’s a vacancy. Did you read the piece by my friend Kevin Hall very publicly resigning from, not the Providence board, but the Sisters of Charity Foundation board, claiming the Sisters of Charity (the order that owns and operates the hospital) had made a deal with pro-abortion forces on the federal health care bill? The piece ran a week ago today. It said, in part:
In a very public break with the church, Providence Hospital and the Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine have defied their bishops on fundamental issues of morality with respect to health care. Working in conjunction with the Catholic Health Association, a hospital trade organization, the sisters and Providence advocated for passage of the health care bill that President Obama recently signed into law. In doing so, they endorsed a bill that I and many others believe allows federal funds to be used for abortion, forcing Americans to pay for other people’s abortions even if they disagree morally. The law also lacks important conscience protections for health care workers that the bishops and many Catholic health care workers viewed as essential.
So while the bishops and millions of ordinary Catholics – Democrat and Republican alike – were working hard to promote reform that protected the poor and protected the unborn and protected the consciences of health care workers, Providence and the Sisters of Charity ended up supporting a bill endorsed by the likes of Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League. Such strange company should have been a clue to the sisters and Providence that their efforts were seriously misguided.
The sisters’ decision to publicly contradict their bishops will have significant consequences. By aligning themselves with pro-abortion groups in support of the bill, they provided both a deliberate public counter-message to the bishops and political cover to the Catholic members of the House who changed their vote to allow the bill’s passage. For instance, Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, claimed: “For us as Catholics it’s very hard to be pro-life when we don’t give many, many mothers who are pregnant care. Or we don’t give pediatric care and well baby care and sick baby care to children. We have nine million uninsured children in this country. That’s not pro-life.” Apparently, Sister Keehan’s pro-life commitment extends only to the uninsured, not to unborn children.
Not surprisingly, the nuns’ open defiance of the church and its unrelenting commitment to life was celebrated by pro-abortion groups. Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, praised those nuns who “most importantly broke with their bishops and the Vatican to announce their support for health care reform.” According to Planned Parenthood, this “brave and important move” by the sisters was a “huge victory for women’s reproductive health” because it significantly increases insurance coverage for “reproductive health care, including family planning.” In Planned Parenthood’s parlance, “reproductive health care” long has included aborting the lives of the unborn….
The day I read that, my first impulse was to immediately write a blog post saying… well, what my headline above says: If Kevin won’t serve on your board, I will. I had that reaction on the basis of several things. The first and foremost was my utter weariness with the unrelenting negativity from Republicans willing to say and do anything to prevent the recent health care legislation from getting any kind of a chance to work. (Yeah, I get it. You lost the argument, and that upsets you. Hey, I don’t like it much either, because it falls so pathetically far short of what we need. But at least I’m willing to give it a chance.) And Kevin, while he is a person for whom I have great respect intellectually as well as morally, is as much a Republican as he is a Catholic. You may recall that he was a leading candidate to become state GOP chairman before health problems caused him to bow out.
Another factor in my reaction was my immense respect for Sister Judith Ann Karam and the other sisters who run Providence. It is a respect of many years standing, and it is based in many things, starting with the fact that the Sisters created the state’s first open-heart surgery program back when that was NOT the major cash cow that it is for hospitals today, because they saw the need in South Carolina. It was a respect further burnished by the circumstances in which the Sisters created the foundation from which Kevin was resigning: It was created with the profits made from selling a half-share in Providence to the for-profit HCA. It’s devoted entirely to addressing social problems in South Carolina, such as the effects of fatherlessness among the state’s children. It raises no money, but operates on the capital that the Sisters originally invested. Then, when the Sisters decided that the HCA deal was a mistake, they bought back the share they had sold to that company. But to do so, they mortgaged their mother house in Ohio, rather than touch any of the Foundation money.
Add to that the fact that when it comes to trusting a position taken on health care, I’m far more likely to trust the judgment and real-world understanding of an entity that actually provides health care than I am a Republican Party activist, even one so intelligent and principled as my friend Kevin.
Finally, I was very concerned about the way Catholic involvement in the healthcare debate was reported everywhere I turned — not only in the MSM (which tends to caricature the Church and other institutions it doesn’t understand), but in the Catholic press: It created the impression that Catholic leadership cared very little for the issue of whether sick and hurt people in this country get the medical care they need, but only about how obscure codicils touching upon the eternal battle over abortion were worded. I found this distressing. I am as strongly opposed to abortion as anyone, but I see it within the context of caring about all people in need of Christian concern, born and unborn. To me, proportionally, it would have made far more sense for the main thrust of Catholic influence to be aimed at making sure the overall bill fit within Catholic social doctrine, while at the same time not compromising on the relatively smaller effect it would have on the abortion issue.
If the Sisters’ “sin” was to care about healthcare holistically, then more power to the Sisters.
But, knowing that Kevin is not a guy to go off half-cocked, I hesitated until I could find out more. Specifically, I wanted to know what Sister Judith Ann had to say. On Sunday, I obtained that from a Letter to the Editor, which I hope my friends at The State won’t mind if I reproduce in full:
Providence firm in protecting life
In response to Kevin Hall’s column on Monday, I would like to clarify several unfortunate misstatements about Providence Hospitals and the Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine regarding our support of the newly enacted health care reform law.
The Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine have remained steadfast in our commitment to Catholic and Christian values. In communion with the church, we have long championed health care reform that expands coverage while protecting life from the moment of conception to death. To say that we would support any legislation that would enable federal funds to be used for abortion is simply not true. Also, the legislation does contain important conscience protections for health care workers by protecting providers’ ability to adhere to Catholic ethical framework and values in the delivery of care.
Throughout the country, there is a debate regarding the interpretation of this new law. Through our own analysis, we strongly believe, and are in accord with the Catholic Health Association and other health care providers, that this law would not provide federal funding for abortions and includes many safeguards to ensure this does not happen. To be very clear, our hospitals and our health system will never support legislation that allows federal funds for abortion.
The Sisters of Charity Health System and Providence Hospitals have lived out our faith-based mission in South Carolina since 1938 by healing individuals, families and neighborhoods through our health care services and outreach into the community. We look forward to continuing our unwavering commitment of carrying forward the healing ministry of Jesus.
Sister Judith Ann Karam
President and CEO, Sisters of Charity Health System
Cleveland, Ohio
That’s sort of what I thought, Sister.
I’m going back to my original reaction: Whatever my friend Kevin chooses to do, I’ll be glad to serve on your board, Sisters, any time you want me.
Serving on such boards is a civic duty.
Mr. Warthen,
I really have to take issue with your using the reasoning that Mr. Hall “is as much a Republican as he is a Catholic” as a way to explain in-part his decision to step down from the Sisters of Charity Foundation board. Unless you’ve talked to him about his reasons for stepping down, you have little basis to make such a claim. Based on that statement and the rest of the paragraph in which it appears, you seem to believe that Hall’s resignation was mostly for political reasons, which means you don’t believe Mr. Hall’s own reasoning as written in his op-ed.
Since you like me are a Catholic and since you are very plugged into and knowledgeable about politics, one would think that you’d understand that for many Catholics, our faith does in fact come before our politics. Why is Mr. Hall any different? Because he is not just a Republican voter but a very active “party guy”? If that’s what you’re thinking then I still beg to differ based on my own experience: I know plenty of Catholics who are also very active in Republican politics in this state, and I do not believe that their pro-life stance or opposition to legislation they deem to be pro-choice is based more on their political interests rather than on their faith.
If a Catholic Democrat is also pro-life, one could reasonably say that–on the abortion issue–that person is putting their Catholic faith before their party identification. But it’s an unreasonable assumption to think that a Catholic Republican who is pro-life is somehow choosing that stance simply because his party platform says it and not because his faith believes it.
Matt Phillips
Spartanburg
Matt, I say that based on knowing Kevin. And what I mean by it is that I can’t separate his political views from his action. I look forward to hearing from Kevin on this — in fact, I think I’ll give him a call and urge him to look at this and respond — but until I hear extraordinarily persuasive arguments to the contrary, it’s hard for me to ignore the fact that while Catholics might agree or disagree with his view of the Sisters’ position on healthcare, his position is 100 percent in line with his beliefs as a Republican.
I don’t for a moment doubt Kevin’s sincerity. But I know him to be a sincere Republican, just as he is a sincere Catholic. And being a Republican is a much stronger argument for taking the position he did than being a Catholic is.
Another way to put it: I’m sure that to Kevin, he has to take this position as a Catholic. But I think the fact that he’s a Republican causes him to see his Catholic duty in this light.
Again, I’m hoping to get a response from Kevin. I just called and left him a voicemail.
Just curious: How does Mr. Hall feel about the government forcing me to pay for military invasions of other countries even if I disagree morally?
How about the death penalty?
Hmmm… Not sure I’m following your logic. Warmaking is a collective national enterprise that can only legitimately engaged in out of taxes we all must pay (unless we go back to issuing war bonds). In a republic, your opportunity to decide whether we go to war is an indirect decision made by our elected representatives.
Meanwhile, to hear the pro-choice side tell it anyway, abortion is entirely a personal option.
So… Upon what basis are you making the comparison?
Many of us, including you?, believe in single-payer health care as a right of a citizen in a modern country, every bit as much as national defense. Abortion is provided by health care professionals–it is a health care action. Who should make health care decisions for us–doctors and patients, or Catholic Republican idealogues?
…and it’s a lot cheaper to provide an abortion than to pay for childbirth and well baby, so the bean counter defense doesn’t apply.So, to the extent we temper free rein for doctors and patients, it is because we cannot afford all medical treatment desired.
If Jehovah’s Witnesses were in the majority, would we be allowed to have blood transfusions? If Christian Scientists were in charge, we could cover everyone really really cheaply.
Brad. That’s what the pro-choicers say. What the anti-abortionists claim is that is not personal choice, and that the Government should make that choice. At that point it is forcing me to be part of an intervention that I don’t think is either just, or my business, and presumably to pay for enforcing their laws to prevent medically safe abortions.
If you don’t like the way your elected representatives wage war, vote them out of office.
Oh wait. We did just that in 2008.
Brad,
I’ve known Kevin from way back when he was a corporate staff attorney and have always liked him. However, I agree with your initial perception of his larger commitment to his political party given his actions over the last couple of years. I hope your offer to serve is taken by the Sisters.
Good Luck,
J
Actually, Karen, what we believe is that it’s not a choice to be made by anyone — and I would add, certainly by the person most interested in the case. Allowing the second-most-affected person (after the unborn) to make the call has no parallel in our society ruled by laws and not men. We would never, for instance, allow the grieving survivor of a murder victim choose the punishment of the killer.
But in reality this has nothing to do with what I want, the system we HAVE makes abortion ENTIRELY a personal choice, as far removed from something like a nation going to war as any two things could be.
I’m just not a pro-choice kind of guy, whether you’re talking abortion or vouchers and tax credits for private school students. In both cases, I say that if you make that entirely personal choice, you pay for it. Don’t expect me to.
I suppose it seems convenient to you to draw the parallel with war, and perhaps it seems satisfying because both evoke strong emotions, involve life and death and involve ultimate judgments of right and wrong. But in terms of the degree to which personal prerogative comes into the process, the two things do not exist in the same logical plane.
All of that said, the debate I was seeking to have was not one that involved “pro-choice” folk. It was a question of whether, in light of their position on the health care bill, a Catholic could in good conscience support the works of the Sisters in Charity.
Kevin says no. I, based on what I know of the situation, say yes. And as much as I respect Kevin, I trust what Sister Judith Ann says. And none of our positions is one that seeks to agree with those who call themselves pro-choice. They are not a part of this debate, although unfortunately Planned Parenthood seems to have injected itself into this to the point of giving Kevin ammunition with which to support his position. My reaction to their statement is, of course they say that. That’s the kind of thing they say. It has no impact over the rightness or wrongness of the position of the Sisters, who would have taken their position for quite different reasons from those of Planned Parenthood.
Brad, thanks for the phone message and glad to comment. I do not question the motives, good will or honesty of the Sisters on this issue or of you in making the argument above. In that spirit, let me offer a few points…
First, my opposition and the argument advanced in the op-ed is based on Church teaching as articulated by the US bishops, not what any political party says. It’s telling that you “accuse” folks who advance the Church’s position on abortion (including the bishops) of shilling for Republicans and, at the same time, make no parallel suggestion the bishops were trying to advance a Democratic Party agenda — this despite the bishop’s strong support for the universal coverage provisions in the bill.
Second, continuing with the straw man you’ve constructed by trying to define me as one making a partisan political argument, you say that you’re “far more likely” to trust the Sisters than a GOP “activist.” This is a bit of a cop out, and is not at all intellectually honest. You can (and usually) do better. The debate is not about who to “trust” – it’s about whether the Sister’s position is consistent with Church teaching. And it is not. It is undisputed that the Sister’s defied the position articulated by the USCCB and every bishop with responsibility for a diocese in which they operate a hospital. The “trust” argument doesn’t hold up because the facts are not in dispute.
Third, you indicate a desire for “making sure the overall bill fits within Catholic social doctrine.” Well, Catholic social doctrine, as you know, is defined by the Church, acting through the bishops — not the Catholic Health Association or other dissenters, no matter how good their intentions. Though some Catholics don’t like it and the MSM despises it, it is the bishops, not the nuns or laypeople like you and me, who speak for the Church on issues of morality.
Fourth, your desire for a “holistic” approach sounds nice and fuzzy, but what does it really mean? If it means that you can pick and choose from the Church’s teachings as you deem fit, then it’s nothing more than license to defy Church teaching at your leisure. If you or I or the Sisters want to defy Church teaching, that is always our individual prerogative. The problem comes when we claim that, in doing so, we speak for the Church. As you know, it simply doesn’t work that way. The bishops speak for the Church on these issues, not us.
Fifth, remember that it was the bishops who argued FOR protection of the unborn and FOR universal coverage and FOR conscience protections. They didn’t go wobbly on the question of abortion funding or conscience protections. If you want a “holistic” approach, I would argue that the bishops’ position is the holistic one, not the position advanced by the Sisters.
Finally, the bottom line in your post seems to be this: When Catholics oppose abortion funding in health-care reform, you accuse them of being Republican shills. But when Catholics ignore the presence of abortion funding in a health-care bill, you pat yourselves on the back for your commitment to universal coverage and a “holistic” approach. That approach is a pretty poor substitute for principled argument. I anticipated better from you.
Always your friend,
Kevin
Thank you for your reply, Kevin! Very thoughtful, and very well argued. And I won’t pretend for a moment that I have as great a command of the facts as you do. But I still side with the Sisters. I guess I’m sort of in the position of the judge in “My Cousin Vinnie:”
Help me understand something, Kevin: You say the Bishops’ position was “holistic” because they wanted all the good things. But are you saying the Sisters’ did not? Because what I’m thinking is that the difference between them is that both wanted all the right things and neither got what they wanted, but faced with a judgment call, one said “yes” and the other “no.”
Kevin, I would never have said “shills.” I would never do that. I think you hold Republican views for principled reasons. I believe that when you embrace the Republican position you do it convinced you are doing the right thing, the thing consistent with your conscience. Nor did I make the unsound claim that the Sisters’ position was the Catholic one, and the bishops’ was not. In keeping with the truth in the old joke, “Is the Pope Catholic?,” I acknowledge the magisterial authority of the bishops in defining what is Catholic. Therefore the bishops’ “no” is far more Catholic than the sisters’ “yes.”
The question here, I thought, is whether one could in good conscience continue to support the works of the Sisters in this community in light of their position on a healthcare bill that (in my opinion as in yours, although for different reasons and to different degrees) is far, far from what we need. I believe that one can.
Perhaps I am inexcusably inconsistent. Chalk it up to my Protestant background before becoming Catholic; I guess it still breaks out in spots. I believe in the authority of the Church. And yet I support such actions as our invasion of Iraq, which as I recall the Pope frowned upon. I do so in the face of the profoundly strong disapproval of my wife, my conscience in all things.
And I seem to recall a story — maybe I’m remembering this wrong, but it’s late at night and I’ll go ahead and make the point and stand corrected later if necessary (and again, I don’t expect to match you point for point on any detail of this discussion; I went into it knowing your command of the facts would be daunting and that you would have spent more time thinking about it than I) — about when the Sisters decided to create the heart program, and set aside maternity and other parts of their ministry to do it. If I recall, their bishop disapproved. (Am I remembering that right?) But they did it anyway, and I think the wisdom of their action has borne out.
So… I find myself in the ridiculously inconsistent position of believing in the bishops’ teaching authority, and at the same time thinking the Sisters did the right thing.
I recognize that my case is far less well-organized than yours, less forcefully argued. But there it is: I would still support the sisters.
Looking back at Kevin’s seamless arguments, and my own stubborn, ill-informed disagreement, I would definitely give him this one on points.
And yet, here I am, disagreeing. This is one of those awful moments in which my tendency to reason by intuition really gets laid bare, and I feel embarrassed by it. Usually, I can argue logically enough to make it LOOK like I reached my conclusion logically. I can do that because, intuitive as I am, I’m actually better at logical argument than most people. But I’m not better at it than Kevin.
Yet I cling stubbornly to my firm belief that the Sisters acted in fully consistency with their orthodox Catholic beliefs (which are the same as those taught by the bishops), informed by their far greater practical understanding of the healthcare issue than that of the bishops.
And I am firm enough in that belief to believe that a Catholic would be acting rightly to support their ministry with his time and talents.
There must be even more Irish blood in me than I supposed. And I can see whence came the term “donkey” to refer to us…
And in keeping with that theme, I might as well go on to offend everyone else in the room…
Kevin, you know something I really hate about this disagreement? I hate the fact that lots of pro-choice, orthodox modern liberals will pat me on the back for my position while condemning yours — even though my position could not be farther from theirs, and if it comes to a disagreement between you and them over abortion I’d be with you every time.
I can just hear the plaudits now from folk who would hold up the Sisters as some sort of postmodernist feminist heroines (do feminists say “heroines” or do they insist on “heroes”? I never can keep straight when feminists want women to be distinguished from men and when they don’t) defying the male oppressors who run the Church.
But I don’t see them that way.
It’s moments like this, when there’s no group with which I can feel some solidarity — neither you nor those who would normally disagree with you — that I envy the partisans, both Democrats and Republicans. Times when it would be great to take a tough stand and be assured there was a whole pack of people who would pat you on the back and congratulate you, and you wouldn’t feel creepy when they did it.
You know, if not for the rise of feminism and related worldviews, we Catholics would all be Democrats, and everything would be simple (you’ll probably disagree with me on that, too, Kevin, but there it is). The way they were in JFK’s time. But then we had to have the Pill and the sexual revolution and abortion and the whole nine yards, and it split everything apart, because — thank God — the Catholic Church isn’t going to throw everything out just because it doesn’t happen to be “modern”.
Just to rant a bit further — the feminist critique is all about power. Mary can be the Queen of Heaven and the ultimate model for all Christians (in terms of submission to God’s will), but if she doesn’t have wordly power then forget about it as far as feminists are concerned: They want what the priests and bishops have, authority here and now on Earth. And of course the abortion issue is about power. It’s about the almighty Individual having the power to decide to drop the Big One and by opposing all your troubles end them, with no one to say you nay. No need for acceptance of a lousy situation; the modern individual is above that.
But power was never what Christianity was about. Oh, it tried having power — from Constantine’s time until Reformation — and it pretty much ruined the Church, which was “punished,” quite rightly, by falling from such power. And yet, in my view, that “punishment” was the salvation of the Church. The Church I joined almost 30 years ago was a humbled one, in comparison to most of its history.
But “humbled” doesn’t mean it goes along with the latest trends. No, “humbled” means that you stick with your beliefs, even when — especially when — all the trendy, modern, right-thinking folk despise you.
And I think that in a sense that’s what you’re saying, Kevin. And I agree with you. But I’d still be glad to serve the Sisters’ ministry.
Mr Hall’s motive is more the issue for me than his position. Choosing the op-ed pulpit for his resignation sermon leaves me more suspicious than accepting of his message. Has me wondering what he’s getting ready to “run for”.
Hey, Brad. A couple final points, and I’ll hush up on this topic.
First, I agree with you that the Sisters and bishops all wanted only good things. I love and respect the Sisters. I question their judgment on this issue, not their motives or honesty or good faith. With the greatest respect for their motives, I think they got it terribly wrong and that the consequences are, literally, deadly. But, again, I think it’s critical to acknowledge the good faith of the Sisters on this topic. I still admire them tremendously.
Second, as for “shilling,” here’s the point. When you initiate a debate first by questioning what motivates the opposing speaker(GOP or Church teaching), the suggestion, pretty clearly, is that the speaker’s proffered motivation is a ruse – i.e., that his genuine motivation is something other than what he articulates. In my view, that’s a very poor starting point for rational debate and tends to promote the demagoguery and name calling that dominates too much of today’s political discourse.
Finally, I would not for a minute suggest that folks can’t support the Sisters ministry in good conscience. The Sisters do tremendous good in our community, and their lives are models of Christian discipline. So, again, I’m a fan of the Sisters most of the time, just not this time. For me and my conscience (nobody else’s), I felt it important to step away and to make clear the reasons why.
My best to Juanita and the family and keep on blogging…
Kevin
Here’s a challenge for you, Kevin: if your opposition to the bill is based on the fact that it supposedly extends federal funding of abortion rather than on the Republican party line, why don’t you cite the relevant language from the text of the bill, which is readily available online?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3590:
It seems to me that most of those who make this claim, including the bishops, can’t be bothered with providing citations even though the burden of proof is on the party making a positive assertion. As far as I can tell, the reason for this omission is because no such language exists.
To illustrate this point, let’s take the one article I’ve seen so far that does attempt to provide citations:
http://www.frc.org/newsroom/obama-proposes-health-care-bill-fully-funding-abortion-
CITATION 1: “In Section 1303 it allows tax credit subsidies for plans that include abortion and leaves the abortion surcharge in place.”
This statement is technically true, but it does not pertain to the claim at hand (the bill extends federal abortion funding). Section 1303 specifically states that no insurer is required to provide abortion coverage of any kind, and that any insurer who does choose to provide coverage for abortions other than those for which federal funding is permissible under applicable federal law (currently, in cases of rape or incest only, due to the Hyde amendment) must collect a separate premium (the aforementioned “abortion surcharge”) from the insured for which no federal subsidies are allowed, put that money into a separate pool, and pay for all such abortions from that pool.
It should also be noted that contrary to Kevin’s assertion, this section contains the supposedly non-existent conscience protection clause:
‘(3) PROVIDER CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS- No individual health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.’
CITATION 2: “It maintains the proposal to create a multi-state plan that includes abortion in Sec. 1334.”
This is the only reference to abortion in Section 1334:
‘(6) ASSURED AVAILABILITY OF VARIED COVERAGE- In entering into contracts under this subsection, the Director shall ensure that with respect to multi-State qualified health plans offered in an Exchange, there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in section 1303(b)(1)(B)(i).’
There is no 1303(b)(1)(B)(i), but I think they mean 1303(a)(1)(B)(i):
‘(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED- The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.’
Assuming the typo was corrected, this means that the federal government is responsible for ensuring that, if any multi-state plans exist, then there must be at least one that does not cover abortions for which federal funding is prohibited. But even if it wasn’t, this section does not create a multi-state plan that covers abortion.
CITATION 3: “Even worse, it would increase the Senate bill funding from $7 billion to $11 billion for community health centers in Sec. 10503 without any abortion funding restrictions.”
Section 10503 does provide funding for community health care centers, but this funding is allocated through DHHS, which means it is subject to the Hyde amendment prohibiting federal funding for abortions other than in cases of rape and incest.
Wally, for specific citations, there are plenty of sources available. The best summary of the legal objections that I’ve seen comes from the USCCB. Link: http://usccb.org/healthcare/03-25-10Memo-re-Executive-Order-Final.pdf
Thanks for the link, Kevin. While many of the arguments in that memo are flawed (which I’ll get to presently) it’s certainly the best attempt I’ve seen yet.
Before I say anything else, I should make the following stipulation: the language in the bill is designed to sidestep the entire issue by preserving the current status quo with respect to abortion, making no changes to current law in that respect, either in permitting or banning abortions or federal abortion funding. Anyone who attempts to argue that the language should have been more restrictive without at least acknowledging the fact that making changes to the abortion status quo in EITHER direction is politically very difficult is either naive or motivated by partisan political gain. Amending the bill in even so seemingly an innocuous manner as promoting the Hyde amendment from a yearly budget rule to a law would have cost critically important votes. I believe this was the reason for the seemingly convoluted language in the bill; I don’t think it was intentionally worded to mandate new federal abortion funding by slipping it through a loophole, nor do I think it likely that it mandates this funding accidentally, through an oversight.
It may be true that from a statutory perspective, the Hyde amendment does not have the force of law over the CHC funding in this bill as it does in the appropriations bill. It does not follow, however, that DHHS is powerless to stop CHCs from paying for abortions, or that CHCs must begin providing them. The memo Kevin has linked attempts to show that the absence of a rule is likely to be interpreted by the courts as a mandate for the federal government to pay for abortions. However, the precedents they cite all pertain to states being compelled to pay for abortions as an implicit result of the Hyde amendment exclusions based on the courts’ interpretation of the intent of Congress; even in those cases where funding from the PPACA may not be directly covered by the Hyde amendment, it is disingenious to suggest the courts will interpret a statute that FORBIDS the government from paying for MOST abortions (thus implicitly mandating coverage for the rest) as MANDATING federal payment for ALL abortions in each and every case where the statute’s language is not directly applicable. In the absence of any other precedent, there is no particular reason to assume that the courts would stop DHHS from applying the Hyde amendment restrictions to all money passing through the agency, which the Secretary of HHS has said they intend to do.
One point on which I agree with the memo is that the President’s executive order does not do anything (except perhaps help Bart Stupak save a little face). However, this is not because it is unenforcable, but because it is redundant. The President’s order is a directive to a Cabinet agency, and while it is possible it might be contested in court, there is no reason at all to assume such a lawsuit would succeed, since the order does not in any way contradict a statute passed by Congress.
The memo admits that health insurance plans under the state exchanges established by the PPACA would not be required to cover any abortions at all, and that federal funds would not be used to pay for abortions provided by those plans that do. However, they go on to suggest that customers purchasing plans through the exchanges could be compelled to buy a plan that provides abortions, and thus be forced to pay for abortions themselves even if they have an objection of conscience. This assertion is false; provision 1303(a)(1)(D)(i)(II) of the PPACA specifically directs the Secretary of HHS to ensure that each state exchange and each insurance market in states where multiple markets are covered by one exchange includes at least one plan that does not provide coverage for abortions other than the Hyde amendment exclusions.
The authors of the memo also take issue with the conscience protections in the bill, in a manner that is not supported by the bill’s text. They assert that the conscience protection in section 1303 applies only to discriminations by insurers and in plans and not to discrimination by the government, but the clause in question makes no such exclusion, and there is no proximate language or context that would support this implication.
It seems to me that the root of the objections to the abortion language in the bill (aside from those based in partisan politics) is the insistence by pro-life advocates that no systemic changes can be made to the way we deliver health care in our country unless new restrictions on abortions included as a part of the package. To me, attempting to kill a bill that does nothing to materially increase federal abortion funding but so much (though not nearly enough) to improve the health care Americans receive for such a reason is a terrible lapse in judgment.
“To me, attempting to kill a bill that does nothing to materially increase federal abortion funding but so much (though not nearly enough) to improve the health care Americans receive for such a reason is a terrible lapse in judgment.”
Well-put, Wally. Thanks.
Thanks to all for a very engaging “debate” on the issues. When I think back a few months ago, such a thing would almost not have been possible on this blog.
Uh-oh… Planned Parenthood is now “following” me…