The Cathoholic

Archbishop Chaput Takes on Senate Healthcare Bill

As Capital Hill enters the final stretch of the Obamacare legislative marathon, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver has targeted the Senate bill, which has yet to gain the requisite House votes, according to the House Majority Whip who made the rounds on media news shows last weekend. I've included the entire text of Chaput's statement, and the National Catholic Register will soon post my story on the subject. But it's worth noting here that if the Senate bill fails to get sufficient votes from House members, it will be due, in part, to the amazing perseverance of political and Catholic leaders like Rep Bart Stupak, the USCCB's Richard Doerflinger, and pro-life bishops like Archbishop Chaput.  As Chaput notes in his statement below, the U.S. bishops have pressed for health care reform for decades, and do not view it as a partisan issue. But the USCCB will not support any legislation that violates the right to life of the unborn. Full Stop.Below are statements addressing the remaining health care reform issues from Archbishop Chaput, followed by a statement from Cardinal George:

CATHOLICS, HEALTH CARE AND THE SENATE’S BAD BILL

By Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

Archbishop of Denver

 

Denver Catholic Register, 3.17.10

Web release, 3.15.10

 The Senate version of health-care reform currently being forced ahead by congressional leaders and the White House is a bad bill that will result in bad law.  It does not deserve, nor does it have, the support of the Catholic bishops of our country.  Nor does the American public want it.  As I write this column on March 14, the Senate bill remains gravely flawed.  It does not meet minimum moral standards in at least three important areas: the exclusion of abortion funding and services; adequate conscience protections for health-care professionals and institutions; and the inclusion of immigrants.  

Groups, trade associations and publications describing themselves as “Catholic” or “prolife” that endorse the Senate version – whatever their intentions – are doing a serious disservice to the nation and to the Church, undermining the witness of the Catholic community; and ensuring the failure of genuine, ethical health-care reform.  By their public actions, they create confusion at exactly the moment Catholics need to think clearly about the remaining issues in the health-care debate.  They also provide the illusion of moral cover for an unethical piece of legislation.

 As we enter a critical week in the national health-care debate, Catholics across northern Colorado need to remember a few simple facts.

First, the Catholic bishops of the United States have pressed for real national health-care reform in this country for more than half a century.  They began long before either political party or the public media found it convenient.  That commitment hasn’t changed.  Nor will it.

Second, the bishops have tried earnestly for more than seven months to work with elected officials to craft reform that would serve all Americans in a manner respecting minimum moral standards.  The failure of their effort has one source.  It comes entirely from the stubbornness and evasions of certain key congressional leaders, and the unwillingness of the White House to honor promises made by the president last September.

Third, the health-care reform debate has never been merely a matter of party politics.  Nor is it now.  Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak and a number of his Democratic colleagues have shown extraordinary character in pushing for good health-care reform while resisting attempts to poison it with abortion-related entitlements and other bad ideas that have nothing to do with real “health care.”  Many Republicans share the goal of decent health-care reform, even if their solutions would differ dramatically.  To put it another way, few persons seriously oppose making adequate health services available for all Americans.  But God, or the devil, is in the details -- and by that measure, the current Senate version of health-care reform is not merely defective, but also a dangerous mistake.

The long, unpleasant and too often dishonest national health-care debate is now in its last days.  Its most painful feature has been those “Catholic” groups that by their eagerness for some kind of deal undercut the witness of the Catholic community and help advance a bad bill into a bad law. Their flawed judgment could now have damaging consequences for all of us.

Do not be misled.  The Senate version of health-care reform currently being pushed ahead by congressional leaders and the White House -- despite public resistance and numerous moral concerns -- is bad law; and not simply bad, but dangerous.  It does not deserve, nor does it have, the support of the Catholic bishops in our country, who speak for the believing Catholic community.  In its current content, the Senate version of health-care legislation is not “reform.”  Catholics and other persons of good will concerned about the foundations of human dignity should oppose it. 

Update: Since my article about the final phase of health care reform negotiaions appeared online, Cardinal Francis George, the USCCB president, has issued his own statement that expresses great regret for the Democrats' path on health care reform and concludes that the bishops have given up any hope that it can still be salvaged in any form they can support. Cardinal George notes that the Catholic Health Association does not share the USCCB's stance.

 

Healthcare Reform: Rep. Stupak & Abortion Funding

Yesterday I listened to an NPR interview with Rep Bart Stupak, the leader of House Democrats opposing abortion funding for health care reform. The NPR interviewer reminded Stupak that both the White House and the Secretary of Health and Human Services insisted that the Senate bill maintained the status quo (ie. no federal funding of abortions). Stupak begged to differ. Then the NPR interviewer asked him if he was prepared to deny health benefits to 30 million uninsured people, just to prevent the funding of abortion. He replied that that some principles were worth fighting for.

It was frustrating to listen to the Stupak interview, as the questions repeated  the Democratic Party leadership's claim that the Senate's health care reform bill doesn't really depart from the Hyde amendment. However, today, perhaps in reaction to Stupak's principled stance, both the New York Times and the Washington Post  published an AP wire service  article on the abortion impasse that actually explained the source of the confusion--or whatever you want to call it.  

For anyone still puzzled by the "he said, she said" back and forth between pro-lifers and Democratic party leaders, here are the relevant passages from the AP article:

"Government policy on taxpayer funding for abortion has been settled for years, following the Hyde amendment.

But the Democratic health care bills altered the balance by creating a new stream of federal money to help working households afford health insurance premiums. Those funds were not subject to the Hyde restrictions.

The House responded by adopting Stupak's amendment, although it was opposed by most Democrats. It says no health insurance plan receiving federal subsidies can pay for abortion, except under the three exceptions already allowed by federal law. Women who want insurance coverage for abortion would have to buy a separate policy.

The Senate bill took a different approach. It says health insurance plans operating in a new consumer marketplace can cover abortion, but it may only be paid for with private premiums. Money from federal subsidies would have to be strictly segregated from any funds used to pay for abortion. Consumers would have to write two checks to their insurance plan, one for the regular premium, the other for abortion coverage.

Leading abortion opponents - including the nation's Catholic bishops - say the Senate language is a fig leaf, opening the way for government subsidies for abortion. They're urging defeat of the health care bill unless it takes Stupak's approach."

For the final word, here's Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life in today's online  Wall Street Journal:

"In November, presidential adviser David Axelrod, on CNN's "State of the Union," also talked around the Hyde Amendment, saying that the president "doesn't believe this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion." But then Mr. Axelrod claimed that "this shouldn't be a debate about abortion" before concluding that there were discussions in Congress about "how to adjust [the abortion language bill] accordingly."

Apparently, his definition of "adjust" means opening up the spigot for the abortion lobby. The president's latest proposal mirrors legislation that has passed the Senate, which doesn't include a Hyde Amendment, and would inevitably establish abortion as a fundamental health-care service for the following reasons:

• It would change existing law by allowing federally subsidized health-care plans to pay for abortions and could require private health-insurance plans to cover abortion.

• It would impose a first-ever abortion tax—a separate premium payment that will be used to pay for elective abortions—on enrollees in insurance plans that covers abortions through newly created government health-care exchanges.

• And it would fail to protect the rights of health-care providers to refuse to participate in abortions.

The president's plan goes further than the Senate bill on abortion by calling for spending $11 billion over five years on "community health centers," which include Planned Parenthood clinics that provide abortions.

The bottom line is that the president wants to deploy words that sound soothing like "balance" and "adjust." Meanwhile, the courts are rendering precedent with stark words like "mandatory." "

Abortion and African-Americans

Pro-lifers, especially those who routinely join prayer vigils at abortion clinics, have long observed the over-representation of African-American women seeking abortions. Yesterday, The New York Times gave the issue page-one attention.  As the fight over health care reform continues on Capital Hill this week, it's worth noting that a limited, but critical number of pro-life Democrats may stop the reform juggernaut in its tracks if the Democratic leadership doesn't reinstate the Stupak Amendment. The Times story underscores the truth that opposition to abortion remains the social justice issue of our era.

Healthcare Reform and Abortion: Risks Remain

President Obama gave his State of the Union address today, and told Capital Hill, "Do not walk away from [healthcare] reform." Today, the National Catholic Register posted my story about the future of health care reform and the possibility that the Democratic leadership will still try to include a mandate for federal funding of abortion in any final bill. Doug Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee believes that pro-lifers must stay vigilant, as Democrats look at a variety of legislative options, from reconciliation to a series of small bills that might include abortion provisions.

Brown Victory Cheers Catholic Pro-lifers

Last night's  Republican victory in Massachusetts' special election has thrilled pro-lifers worried about the effort to mandate federal funding of abortion through the passage of Obamacare. Here's my exclusive for the National Catholic Register that offers the Catholic, pro-life angle on Brown's sudden surge of support.

Update: Here's Phil Lawler's excellent analysis of the Scott Brown victory and what it means for the future of Democratic politics in the Bay State.d

Obama at Notre Dame: Deconstructions

Just read a very  interesting deconstruction of President Jenkins of Notre Dame and President Obama's comments at Notre Dame's commencement posted on the National Catholic Register. 

In the Wall Street Journal, Bill McGurn provides context for Jenkins' ambiguous stance and Obama's powerful impact at the commencement: Unlike Jenkins, Obama clearly articulated his position. The imbalance is created by Notre Dame's weak institutional support for Catholic moral teaching. The  university puts its considerable resources towards the work of social justice, argues McGurn; there is little standing for pro-life leaders and initiatives. Writes McGurn:

"With its billions in endowment and its prestigious name, Notre Dame ought to be in the lead here. But when asked for examples illuminating the university's unambiguous support for unborn life, Mr. Brown could provide only four: help for pregnant students who want to carry their babies to term, student volunteer work for pregnant women at local shelters, prayer mentions at campus Masses, and lectures such as a seminar on life issues.

"These are all well and good, but they also highlight the poverty of Notre Dame's institutional witness. At Notre Dame today, there is no pro-life organization -- in size, in funding, in prestige -- that compares with the many centers, institutes and so forth dedicated to other important issues ranging from peace and justice to protecting the environment. Perhaps this explains why a number of pro-life professors tell me they must not be quoted by name, lest they face career retaliation.

"The one institute that does put the culture of life at the heart of its work, moreover -- the Center for Ethics and Culture -- doesn't even merit a link under the "Faith and Service" section on the university's Web site. The point is this: When Notre Dame doesn't dress for the game, the field is left to those like Randall Terry who create a spectacle and declare their contempt for civil and respectful witness.

"In the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian, there is a wonderful photograph of Father Ted Hesburgh -- then Notre Dame president -- linking hands with Martin Luther King Jr. at a 1964 civil-rights rally at Chicago's Soldier Field. Today, nearly four decades and 50 million abortions after Roe v. Wade, there is no photograph of similar prominence of any Notre Dame president taking a lead at any of the annual marches for life."

Meanwhile, Archbishop Chaput of Denver offers an incisive statement on the issues that remain on the table at Notre Dame as Obama returns to Washington, D.C.: "The most vital thing faithful Catholics can do now is to insist – by their words, actions and financial support – that institutions claiming to be “Catholic” actually live the faith with courage and consistency.  If that happens, Notre Dame’s failure may yet do some unintended good."

Postscript: Just read Ralph McInerny's superb reflection on the two parallel events that occurred over the weekend. The news media and the majority of seniors stuck with one half of the story, but McInerny's heart remained with the other-- the beloved Notre Dame where he has taught philosophy to generations of students, 'in season and out.' This divided world is rooted, he observes, in the larger profound divisions that fragment the Body of Christ in the decades following the Second Vatican Council.  

And another excellent statement from Bishop Finn of Kansas. It appears that the Notre Dame commencement has provided an opportunity for great moral clarity in the Church.

Obama & the New Pro-life Majority

During yesterday's commencement address at Notre Dame, President Obama asked the assembled crowd to keep open minds and hearts during the on-going abortion debate. A recent Gallup poll documents that Americans are certainly open to pro-life arguments. The Gallup data confirm that a slim majority now oppose abortion. The Gallup report makes this  observation

"A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.” This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

"The new results, obtained from Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002."

In First Things, Wesley Smith, a pro-life commentator and scholar, suggests the polling data may lead the White House to rethink its strategy for abortion rights. Writes Smith:

"With two respected national polls showing a distinct move in the pro life direction, I think the Obama Administration will try to keep the matter as a low priority concern among voters. If I am right, look for the Freedom of Choice Act—which would eliminate all state and federal restrictions on abortion—to remain moribund, at least until after the 2010 midterm elections. On the state level, where most pro life battles are fought, pro life political activists may have an opportunity in many states to further their cause—but they should also be careful not to overplay their hand."

And how should social conservatives use this shift to their advantage? The most likely approach will be to heavily publicize the pro-abortion stance of Obama's future nominee to the Supreme Court.  In fact, a recent front-page New York Times article about the conservation response to the looming confirmation battle underscored the importance of educating Americans about the nominee's record on abortion and the White House's commitment to Roe v.Wade. 

Vatican, Obama & Abortion

Over the past six weeks, pro-lifer activists have become increasingly concerned that the Vatican may be slightly retreating from its once robust defense of pro-life principles. 

Last week, a close friend from Nicaragua and long-time pro-life leader who represented her country at the United Nations conference on women  in Beijing, called my attention to a skirmish provoked by Archbishop Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who wrote an article, "On the Side of the Brazilian Girl," which attacked as  “hasty” the decision by Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife -- the Brazilian ordinary who said that those had "procured the abortion of twins for a nine year-old rape victim had incurred an automatic penalty of excommunication."

The article provoked an outpouring from pro-life leaders and activists throughout the globe because -- as a story in LifeSite explains it:  the "article published by L’Osservatore Romano implyi[ed] that direct abortion could be morally justified or its evil mitigated in some “extreme circumstances.”

Since the article was published in March,  LifeSite reports,  Vatican offices have been bombarded "with protests, petitions and letters asking for a retraction or clarification." No such statement has appeared. LifeSite also posted a letter protesting this developments by Professor Joseph Seifert, a lifetime members of the Pontifical Academy of Life. Wrote Seifert:

"The recent publication of an article by PAV President Mons. Fisichella in the Osservatore Romano and its world-wide distribution and use by pro-abortionists as well as a press communication of Father Lombardi, have led to a deep crisis of the Pontifical Academy for Life and, more importantly, of the public perception of Church teaching on abortion. Countless persons and media in the whole world now attribute to the PAV and (because of the high authority its President is believed to possess in interpreting Church teaching on life), and to the Pope himself (because of the wording of a defense of Mons. Fisichella's article by Father Lombardi) a propagation of a new moral doctrine diametrically opposed to the teachings of the Church and particularly to those of the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, which is also the Magna Charta of the Pontifical Academy for life and  contains its raison d'être."

Then, last week,  L'Obsservatore Romano published an  essay that made this rather startling assertion: the first hundred days of the Obama administration "have not confirmed fears of radical changes" on a variety of issues including abortion rights. Coming in the wake of a series of White House's decisions on abortion --  to send federal dollars to the United Nations Population Fund ($50 million for this fiscal year), reverse the Mexico City policy, rescind the Bush administration's 11th hour conscience protections for healthcare workers that did not want to participate in abortions or dispense emergency contraceptives,  and, most recently, to permit the expansion of federally funded embryonic stem cell research -- the assertion is eye-brow raising, to say the least.This week, my article in the National Catholic Register looks at the new NIH guidelines on embryonic stem cell research --- and concludes that they are the beginning, not the end of a long road.

The National Catholic Reporter's John Allen believes this latest article is one of a series of signals from Rome that underscore "a glaring difference in tone between the Vatican and the most ardently pro-life circles in the American Catholic church, including a growing number of American bishops."  Writes Allen:

"In general, several voices in the Vatican have taken a moderate and conciliatory line on the Obama administration, while several U.S. bishops, buoyed by a network of pro-life activists, have been more pugnacious.

"The essay, by L'Osservatore's frequent foreign affairs contributor Giuseppe Fiorentino, appeared in the April 29 edition.

"Fiorentino's core argument was that Obama's first 100 days "have not shaken the world," contending that despite the president's popularity and communications skills, his policies in many areas have not amounted to a sharp break with the past. Obama has largely continued the policies of the Bush administration in Afghanistan, Fiorentino wrote, and he compared Obama's reluctance to nationalize banks and other lenders to the laissez faire approach of the Reagan administration.

"The L'Osservatore essay pointed to some concrete foreign policy moves that seemed positive, but still tentative and undeveloped, including cautious openings to Iran, Russia and Cuba.

"On the "life issues," Fiorentino argued that Obama's controversial executive order on embryonic stem cell research was actually fairly restrained, because it still prevents the creation of embryos for purposes of research or cloning, and it limits the use of federal funding for research to "surplus" embryos.

"Fiorentino also argued that Obama's support for the "Pregnant Women Support Act" represents a "rebalancing" of his abortion policies "in support of maternity."

"In general, Fiorentino said, the first 100 days of the Obama presidency are too soon to reach a definitive judgment. "It's better to wait for the next 1,361 days," he wrote, referring to the rest of the president's first term.

"One striking feature of the L'Osservatore essay was what it did not contain. There was no reference to the controversy among American Catholics over the University of Notre Dame's plan to award Obama an honorary doctorate on the occasion of his commencement address this month."

So what's going on? Certainly, the Vatican can applaud the Obama administration's decision to formally repudiate the use of torture in interrogations of suspected terrorists, to take one example.

Allen believes the Holy See is taking stock of a developing situation that requires a measure of diplomatic finesse. This is nothing new: Allen, himself, recalls earlier skirmishes during the bad old Cold War days when Vatican "pragmatists" took a more conciliatory line with Moscow, in hopes of receiving some crumbs in return. That policy lost credibility, however, when Moscow continued to crack down on Catholic churches. When Pope John Paul II was elected pope, he quickly reversed this policy and the rest, as we know, is history. 

Another LifeSite report echoes Allen's assessment and offers this salient point from Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro, the head of the Rome office of Human Life International:  

“It is clearly an effort to build bridges with the current Democratic Administration in the U.S.,” he said.  “This one of several articles that have been published in L'Osservatore Romano with this intent. It would seem that some officers within the Secretary of State have hopes that with a moderate and positive approach towards President Obama they would be able to stop him from implementing many of the more radical elements of his political platform.”

Postscript: Readers who want further analysis of this development can can check this posting that raises some interesting issues about a related analysis in America. It seems that everybody is coming out of the woodwork and giving their own spin on this.

 

Cardinal George: Obama on the "wrong side of history."

Cardinal George compared the Catholic Church's stance on abortion to Lincoln's position on slavery and said this in the wake of his conversation with President Obama: 

"The church and the president find common ground on supporting social programs that lift up the poor, but Cardinal George said on the issue of abortion, "I think we're up against something a little bit like slavery."

"These are members of the human family, genetically individuated, (with) a human father and a human mother," he said. "What their legal status is, of course, you can debate, and we have. ... John Paul II says you cannot simply live comfortably with an immoral legal system, any more than you could live comfortably with slavery, and therefore you have to work to change the law.

"It's a society-dividing issue, and on this issue, we're with Abraham Lincoln and he's with Stephen Douglas, and he doesn't like to hear that, but that's where he is."

In the wake of Mary Ann Glendon's decision not to be honored during Notre Dame's commencement, it's interesting to speculate about what the president believes he can accomplish by keeping his appointment in South Bend next month. Hard to know where this escalating conflict will lead, and whether all the leaders of the U.S. hierarchy have the stomach for it.