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."

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.

Kagan: Questions on Clinton-era Abortion Policy Advice

As noted in The Cathoholic, pro-life advocates and 'originalist" legal scholars have expressed concerns about her politicized approach to the law and how that might influence her role as a juror.

National Review just posted a story, which argued that Kagan, while serving in the Clinton administration,  misrepresented the medical community's consensus position on paritial-birth abortion.

UPDATE: The Volokh Conspiracy targets the issue:

"[Kagan's] notes, produced by the White House to the Senate Judiciary Committee, show that she herself drafted the critical language hedging ACOG’s position. On a document [PDF] captioned “Suggested Options” — which she apparently faxed to the legislative director at ACOG — Kagan proposed that ACOG include the following language: “An intact D&X [the medical term for the procedure], however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.”

UPDATE: Today [June 30], during the Senate judicial confirmation hearings, Sen. Hatch (R-Utah) asked Kagan about her efforts to alter an official statement from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists regarding the necessity of partial-birth abortion as an available medical procedure.  Reuters reported that " Kagan was forced to defend her revision of an obstetrician group's policy statement on partial-birth abortion while she was an adviser in the Clinton White House."

Reuters reported on the following exchange between Sen.Hatch and Kagan:

"Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told Kagan .. "Your language played an enormous role in both legal and political fights over banning partial-birth abortion," he said. "The political objective of keeping partial-birth abortion legal appears to have trumped what a medical organization originally wrote and left to its own scientific inquiry and that they had concluded."

Congress passed a ban on the procedure twice in the 1990s but President Clinton vetoed it both times. The procedure was finally banned in 2003 when President Bush signed it into law. The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban in 2007 in a 5-4 ruling.

On Wednesday, Kagan disputed Hatch's version of the events, but admitted that she did speak with ACOG to revise the statement.

She also refused to take ownership over the memos advocating the less restrictive language.

"What I did was to advance the policy of the president," she said.

Kagan also said ACOG couldn't identify any circumstances in which the procedure was the only one that could be used in a given case but could find situations in which it was least riskiest procedure for women.

"There did come a time when we saw a draft statement that stated the first of these things which we knew ACOG to believe, but not the second, which we also knew ACOG to believe," she said. "And I had some discussions with ACOG about that draft.

"And so we knew that ACOG thought of both of these things," she said. "We informed President Clinton of that fact."

Kagan said the "disaster" would have been a statement that didn't reflect the group's two beliefs.

Hatch wasn't satisfied with her explanation.

"Well, I'll tell you this bothers me a lot because I know that there are plenty of doctors in ACOG who did not believe that partial-birth abortion was an essential procedure and who believed that it was really a brutal procedure and it was a constant conflict there," he said.

"That's something that does bother me because it would be a disaster, you wrote, because ACOG opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion. If anyone ever found out -- and you wrote that it could leak -- even if ACOG did not officially release its original statement, it could have negative political consequences," Hatch said."

ADDITIONAL UPDATE: National Review's The Corner, returns to the subject, with some interesting points from Shannen Cofin.

Kagan Confirmation: Pro-life Concerns

Today, the Senate begins the confirmation hearings for President Obama's second nominee to the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan, the Solicitor General and former Dean of Harvard Law School. Last week, Judge Robert Bork, Bill Saunders  of Americans United for Life, and Gerard Bradley, a constitutional law professor from Notre Dame outlined their concerns regarding Kagan's lack of judicial experience, politicized approach to interpreting the law, and admiration for prominent jurors who, in their view, embrace judicial activism. I reviewed their concerns in an article for the National Catholic Register. Kagan, of course, is expected to win. But her critics want  to educate the American public about the relevant issues.  Pro-life advocates and groups that oppose jurors "legislating from the bench," hope to use votes for Kagan as a campaign issue in the fall--politically vulnerable Senators, they argue,will wish they had thought twice before confirming her.

Boston's Caritas Christi Deal--What's for Sale?

This spring, when I reported on the Caritas Christi sale to one of the nation's top private equity firms, my story noted that the new buyer would maintain the Catholic identity of the hospital network. At least, that's what I was told at the time. Now, we learn that the deal includes this option: the buyer could pay an additional $25 million to dismantle all vestiges of the network's Catholic identity, including adherence to Catholic moral teaching.

The recent controversy in Phoenix over the morality of a direct abortion at a Catholic hospital underscores the fact that mainstream health care ethics doesn't necessarily conform to Catholic teaching. Critics of the Caritas deal charge that the $25 million opt out fee suggests that even the church's commitment to the sanctity of life is for sale. An additional concern is how this opt out clause--if executed-- would affect the pro-life physicians and nurses who now serve patients through the network.

Bishop Olmstead's Excommunication

Not too long ago, Bishop Olmstead of Phoenix provoked a firestorm when he issued his public judgment that Sister McBride--the administrator at the Phoenix Catholic hospital that approved a direct abortion in 2009--incurred "automatic excommunication for signing off on the procedure. Disputations' David Gibson provides  blackboard illustration on the brutal mechanics of the excommunication. If you want to catch up with the controversy, you can catch my story in the National Catholic Register.

UPDATE: This week, the USCCB Committee on Doctrine issued a statement backing Bishop Olmstead's controversial judgment. The statement of support reflects, no doubt, the U.S. hierarchy's awareness that many American Catholics and healthcare providers don't understand the difference between direct abortion and medical procedures intended to address a pathology that have the indirect effect of ending the life of the patient's unborn child.

Carly Fiorina: Making the Pro-life Position 'Less Scary'

Here's my interview in the National Catholic Register with Carly Fiorina,  the Republican candidate for Senator in California who will go head to head against Senator Barbara Boxer, one of the most reliable abortion rights supporters in the U.S. Senate. Here's what she has to say about the health reform bill:

"There are many aspects of the health-care reform bill that are unacceptable. The bill should be repealed and replaced with a viable and moral set of alternatives.

This health-care bill doesn’t start with the core principle of the sanctity of life in the womb or the end of life. It provides taxpayer funding for a whole set of procedures that those of us in the pro-life community find immoral."

The former CEO of Hewlett Packard, with an MBA from MIT, Fiorina rejected the notion that opponents of embryo-destructive stem cell research were "anti-science" and suggested that advances in embryology provided further support for the pro-life position.

Fiorina hopes her candidacy will make  pro-life  women candidates "less scary. People will realize that women should be able to speak out against these policies and procedures. We should be able to do that without fear of our political future and without being branded as extremists."

The latest poll places Boxer and Fiorina in a "statistical tie."

New Traction for Pro-life Women in GOP

Here's my news story on the recent primary victories of pro-life Republican women running for the Senate and for governor. Interviews with Carly Fiorina, the Republican candidate for the Senate in California, and Sharron Angle, who hopes to unseat Sen.Harry Reid in Nevada, underscore the fact that the economy--not abortion  remains the top issue for most voters. But their frustration with out of control spending may lead those who support abortion rights to set aside their  preconceptions about social conservatives, in an effort to find "common ground" solutions to high unemployment and related issues.

The Susan B.Anthony List was the first pro-life organization to endorse Fiorina, a vote of confidence that fueled support from the party base in California. The SBA List, and other anti-abortion organizations will spend heavily in Nevada, where they expect to follow the playbook used to defeat former Senator Tom Daschle, who downplayed his pro-abortion voting record back home--before he was called to account in the 2004 election.Though Sarah Palin remains controversial within the party, Sharron Angle told me during her interview with me that Palin's decision to protect the life of Trig, her last child who was diagnosed with Down syndrome, had an impact on the party, as well as the broader culture.

UPDATE: Great analysis of Newsweek cover story on Sarah Palin by Kathryn Lopez in the National Catholic Register.

UPDATE: Not everyone is buying the "pro-life feminist" line. Witness this remark from this blog posting reacting to the surge of anti-abortion GOP female candidates:

"To some this could seem like a feminist victory. It’s a female Republican victory, sure. But being a feminist and being against reproductive freedoms means you are not a feminist. You can say you’re a Mets fan, but if you only want the Yankees to win – you’re not a Mets fan."

The trivialization of abortion, which treats the unborn child as an unwelcome and hostile enemy of its mother, is precisely why hard-line advocates like Barbara Boxer now seem increasingly out of step with mainstream culture.

NEW UPDATE: Nikki Haley just won the South Carolina Primary for Governor!

Below is Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser’s response to Nikki Haley’s victory in the South Carolina gubernatorial runoff:

 

“Nikki Haley’s runoff victory is one more example of the electoral power of authentic, pro-life feminism in this election cycle.  Public polling consistently shows that the majority of voters, including women, consider themselves to be pro-life.  But, because of a void of pro-life women's leadership at all levels of elected office, we’re seeing a hunger for authentic, pro-life women candidates in primaries across the country.  As a three-term state legislator and successful businesswoman, Nikki Haley is poised to become the first female governor of South Carolina and one of many pro-life women candidates bursting onto the political scene.  Her primary win and those of pro-life women candidates like her are building momentum toward victories at the ballot box in November and poised to make 2010 the Year of the Pro-Life Woman.”

The Year of the (Pro-life) Woman

In today's New York Times op-ed page, Ramesh Ponnuru  marks a promising political development -- "The Year of the (Pro-Life) Woman":

"There are many millions of pro-life women, but there are only 13 in the House. The Senate has no pro-life women. Even Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas Republican who votes with pro-lifers on many issues, says she favors Roe v. Wade. All of the women who have served on the Supreme Court have supported Roe, too.

Pro-life women have not even found representation among Republican first ladies, all of whom in the post-Roe era have been pro-choice. One reason that Sarah Palin’s nomination for vice president in 2008 was so immediately polarizing is that she instantly became the most prominent pro-life woman American politics has ever produced.

Sarah Palin is about to get some company. Two pro-life women won Republican nominations for the Senate this week. A Tea Party favorite, Sharron Angle, and the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina are running for the Senate from Nevada and California, respectively.

A third pro-life woman, Susana Martinez, became the party’s nominee for governor of New Mexico, and a fourth, Nikki Haley, a South Carolina state legislator, is expected to be a gubernatorial nominee in her state. If they win their primaries, Kelly Ayotte, the former attorney general of New Hampshire, and Jane Norton, the former lieutenant governor of Colorado, will also be pro-life Senate candidates in November.

None of these candidates is a single-issue pro-lifer. But these women have not been shy about discussing the issue, either. Neither Ms. Fiorina nor Ms. Haley would have been likely to get Ms. Palin’s endorsement — valuable in a Republican primary — without firmly opposing abortion. Likewise, Ms. Angle would not have been able to unite populist conservatives and beat the party establishment’s candidate had she been pro-choice."