The Cathoholic

USCCB on the Job Regarding Obamacare and Abortion

LIFE ISSUES FORUM                                                       July 23, 2010 For Immediate Release   Abortion Returns to the Health Care Reform Debate By Richard M. Doerflinger               Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) in March, amidst an unresolved debate about the legislation’s impact on abortion and conscience protection.  As president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Francis George explained then that the bishops had to oppose the final bill despite their strong support for health care reform, because (among other things) it “appropriates billions of dollars in new funding without explicitly prohibiting the use of these funds for abortion.”  Others dismissed this charge, saying that legislative intent and a last-minute executive order from President Obama prevented abortion funding.             Fast-forward to July, when one of those PPACA provisions appropriating billions of dollars was about to take effect.  Section 1101 of the Act provides $5 billion for “high-risk insurance pools,” providing much-needed health coverage for people with “pre-existing conditions” who cannot otherwise get coverage.  This program ends in January 2014, when these patients can join others in purchasing qualified health plans on the new state insurance exchanges.  State governments can propose the benefits list and other details for covering their residents in these pools, but the federal government makes final decisions and provides all government funds for subsidizing this coverage.             Pro-life groups found that several states – beginning with Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Maryland – had announced on their web sites that their statewide plans would include elective abortions.  (New Mexico used the phrase openly; Pennsylvania said its plan would not cover “elective abortions,” but would cover abortions that are legal under the Supreme Court’s decisions – meaning any abortion an abortionist sees as needed for a woman’s social or emotional “well-being.”)  These plans were described as already approved, and New Mexico had already begun signing up enrollees.               Public criticism of this development prompted immediate denials and evasive responses.  An initial response from the Department of Health and Human Services insisted that “federal funds” would not cover these abortions – leaving open the prospect that everyone who enrolls could be forced to fund other people’s abortions with their premium dollars.  Late on July 14, however, HHS issued a new and more welcome response, saying that abortions simply “will not be covered” in these plans except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life, as has long been true in federally subsidized health plans for federal employees.             Now pro-abortion groups are crying foul, with the interesting complaint that this pro-life outcome goes beyond anything in PPACA or the executive order.  In other words, they are saying the bishops’ analysis of loopholes in these documents is right.               The high-risk pool program is just one funding stream left open to abortion by PPACA.  For now it seems pro-life forces have won the first round, through careful research and a prompt public response.  But PPACA needs a legislative fix to close such loopholes once and for all.  That fix is offered by the “Protect Life Act” (H.R. 5111) sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) and 115 other House members, including 13 Democrats.  Whether these or other billions of dollars in taxpayers’ funds are used to help kill unborn children is not a matter we should leave to shifting politics or to chance.     Mr. Doerflinger is Associate Director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.  To learn more about the bishops’ pro-life activities see www.usccb.org/prolife.

Roberts' Court: What Does the "Conservative" Trend Mean for Abortion?

Today, the New York Times had an interesting piece on the Roberts' court, which was described as the most conservative in decades, a shift that could result in further limitations on abortion rights, and an expanded role for the church. A few paragraphs into the story, the Times reporter noted that the conservative shift was "modest."

Winter's Bone

Winter's Bone, an indie film that takes place in southwestern Missouri, is now in theaters and well worth watching. Here's my commentary on the film in National Review Online. The story unfolds in a poor rural area decimated by the crystal meth plague. But the movie is also  a meditation on human endurance and it has special relevance for anyone living with problems that have no immediate resolution.

Are Internships (Paid or Unpaid) About to Become Extinct?

National Review Online posted an excellent commentary by John Derbyshire: "The Jobs Americans Should Not Have to Do?" It appears that President Obama is not busy enough with reforming Detroit, health care, the energy industry, and the financial industry. Now the White House wants to do something about the 100,000 paid and unpaid internships the children of yours truly and many other Americans have been thrilled to land. Is this a Catholic issue? Maybe not. But frustration is rising..

Chosen, How Christ Sent Twenty-three Surprised Converts to Replant His Vineyard

I thoroughly enjoyed Chosen: How Christ Sent Twenty-three Surprised Converts to Replant His Vineyard, a wonderful book of conversion stories--the right size to read just before bed time. Here's my review in the National Catholic Register. I was surprised to discover the book included stories by two dear friends: Vivian Dudro and Susan Bujnak who live in California.

Obamacare and Abortion Funding, Part II

This was a busy week for the pro-life movement and the USCCB. On Tuesday, the National Right to Life Committee released a report charging that the high-risk insurance pools in Pennsylvania that would receive $160 million in federal funds--courtesy of the new health bill--would include abortion services. The Department of Health and Human Services and Rep.Bart Stupak denied the charge, and insisted that the Executive Order already prohibited federal funding for abortion. The next day, without precisely saying so, the HHS spokeswoman said that the new state high-risk insurance pools "will not" fund abortion services. By Thursday, the USCCB was able to release a statement that confirmed an HHS policy shift had occurred. Here's the story. I've Googled this issue, and most major media organizations don't appear to be interested in the matter.  ABC and Fox pulled together stories.

UPDATE: NPR covered this issue yesterday, mostly from the perspective of abortion-rights groups who contend that preventing coverage of abortion services in the state high-risk insurance pools is going beyond the boundaries of the Executive Order.

Here's some of the documentation organized by the National Right to Life Committee:

Following NRLC's release on the Pennsylvania plan on July 13, the initial statement from DHHS, issued late July 13, was as follows:

 

< STATEMENT FROM JENNY BACKUS - HHS SPOKESWOMAN

Under the Affordable Care Act and the President’s related Executive Order, federal funds made available to states for the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan may not be used to fund abortion.  We will reiterate this policy in guidance to those running the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan at both the state and federal levels. >

 

In a second statement, issued late July 14:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                            Contact:   HHS Press Office

Wednesday, July 14, 2010                                                                         (202) 690-6343      

STATEMENT OF HHS SPOKESWOMAN JENNY BACKUS ON THE PRE-EXISTING CONDITION INSURANCE PLAN POLICY

 

As is the case with FEHB plans currently, and with the Affordable Care Act and the President's related Executive Order more generally, in Pennsylvania and in all other states abortions will not be covered in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered.

 

Our policy is the same for both state and federally-run PCIP programs. We will reiterate this policy in guidance to those running the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan at both the state and federal levels. The contracts to operate the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan include a requirement to follow all federal laws and guidance.

 

****

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-patient-protection-and-affordable-care-acts-consistency-with-longst

 

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

March 24, 2010

Executive Order -- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion

EXECUTIVE ORDER

ENSURING ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS IN THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (Public Law 111-148), I hereby order as follows:

Section. 1. Policy. Following the recent enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this order is to establish a comprehensive, Government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors -- Federal officials, State officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers -- are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, section 508(d)(1) of Public Law 111-8) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management.

Sec. 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges. The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires State health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of the OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this order, a model set of segregation guidelines for State health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that States should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of the OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to State health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Sec. 3. Community Health Center Program. The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using Federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or Presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the OMB relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 24, 2010.

Sister Carol Keehan on Dr. Donald Berwick, Obamacare, and the USCCB

I caught up with Sister Carol Keehan earlier this week, as she headed off for Haiti. She had prompted another round of criticism from some pro-life groups after she endorsed the appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick as the new director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. Among other things, Sister Carol said that relations between her and the USCCB, in the wake of their standoff on abortion funding language in Obamacare, were  on the mend.

Dr. Donald Berwick--The Future "Rationing Czar?"

Earlier this week, Dr. Donald Berwick, the Harvard pediatrician and university professor, was sworn to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, with a budget of over $800 billion and 90 million patients. Berwick has earned a national reputation for his work providing guidelines to improve health care quality.  But pro-life groups and other critics of Obamacare are worrried about  Berwick's long paper trail of public statements both supporting Britain's government-run system, and criticizing America's patchwork approach that provides a large role for the private sector. Berwick's critics contend that his ideas reflect the Obama administration's preference for federal control over the health care system. I covered the story for the National Catholic Register.

Opponants of Berwick's appointment include Burke Balch, director of the Powell Center for Medical Ethics at the National,  who said, "Dr. Berwick has a long history of advocating governmental rationing of health care, including life-saving medical treatment."

As I note, "Berwick’s controversial public record includes this passage from a 1994 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association: “Most metropolitan areas in the United States should reduce the number of centers engaging in cardiac surgery, high-risk obstetrics, neonatal intensive care, organ transplantation, tertiary cancer care, high-level trauma care, and high-technology imaging.”

But Sister Carol Keehan, president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association, said she endorsed Berwick and defended his comments about rationing: “We have the worst rationing of health care of any industrialized nation: When you get told you need surgery, you have to ask your insurance company, ‘May I?’ And if you don’t have insurance, you need to find a program for the poor. We have terrible rationing right now.”

Bishop Macram Max Gassis: "The Pulse of Sudan"

One of my personal heroes in the contempory Catholic Church is Bishop Macram Max Gassis of Sudan. I first learned of his amazing courage, effective global advocacy, and utter devotion to Sudan's persecuted religious minorities--Christians and animists--more than a decade ago. At that time, Bishop Gassis impressed me deeply, and I worked with friends out in California to raise funds to build wells and buy a vehicles for his remote diocese in central Sudan. Recently, I had the pleasure of meeting up with Bishop Gassis in Rome. I learned that he was expecting a new coadjutor bishop who would lighten his load slightly and help divide up administrative responsibilities. The bishop will continue to speak out about human rights issues in Sudan, a battleground for radical Islam, and continue to raise funds for schools and other needs. Here's my story in the National Catholic Register that places the bishop's work within the context of Sudan's impending 2011 referendum, which will decide with the southern part of the country secedes from the north. 

The New York Times and the Pope--Again

Today's New York Times targeted Pope Benedict XVI.

Phil Lawler provides a timely response to the Times's charges. Keep in mind that Lawler is no apologist for episcopal irresponsibility.