The Cathoholic

Catholic and Pro-life Leaders: Health Bill Postmortem

Here's my article on reactions to the bill's passage by Catholic and pro-life leaders.

They give high marks to the USCCB and vent frustration regarding the Catholic Health Association's endorsement.

Kathleen Parker: 'the guy who Stupaked health-care reform"

Parker lays it out in the Washington Post:

"Poor Bart Stupak. The man tried to be a hero for the unborn, and then, when all the power of the moment was in his frail human hands, he dropped the baby. He genuflected when he should have dug in his heels and gave it up for a meaningless executive order.

Now, in the wake of his decision to vote for a health-care bill that expands public funding for abortion, he is vilified and will forever be remembered as the guy who Stupaked health-care reform and the pro-life movement."

Obama's Executive Order on Abortion: No Brainer

Today, Rep. Bart Stupak and other pro-life House Democrats agreed to back the health care bill after President Obama promised to issue an Executive Order banning any federal funding of abortion. As noted in my previous post today, the recent executive order ostensibly was designed to block any funding of abortions for the community health clinics mandated by the bill. The problem, according to host of puzzled and angry commentators, from Slate, to  National Review,  is that this Executive Order will do no more than the Senate Bill to comprehensively prohibit federal funding of abortions. Here's Yuval Levin in National Review's The Corner:

"Upon first hearing there was talk of an executive order yesterday, I wondered how the administration’s lawyers thought such an order could go beyond the letter of the law in restricting abortion funding. This was a question the Bush administration examined quite extensively on several occasions, and the lawyers involved always agreed that the legal precedents from the time between the Roe decision and passage of the Hyde amendment, as well as some after the Hyde amendment, are extremely clear in stating that federal funds cannot be denied to the provision of abortion except by explicit legislative prohibition. That’s why the Hyde amendment was necessary. But the Hyde amendment wouldn’t apply to this bill, since it applies only to the annual HHS appropriations bill. Hence Stupak’s concern. So what could the White House possibly give Stupak that would not be thrown out by any federal judge in a second?

Looking at the executive order (which you can read here), the answer is clearly nothing. The executive order quite literally does nothing that the Senate bill does not already do, and it is careful to say as much."

Andy McCarthy in The Corner adds this:

"The Susan B. Anthony List observation that EOs can be rescinded at the president's whim is of course true. This particular EO is also a nullity — presidents cannot enact laws, the Supreme Court has said they cannot impound funds that Congress allocates, and (as a friend points out) the line-item veto has been held unconstitutional, so they can't use executive orders to strike provisions in a bill. So this anti-abortion EO is blatant chicanery: if the pro-lifers purport to be satisfied by it, they are participating in a transparent fraud and selling out the pro-life cause."

This grim judgment was echoed by pro-life groups that also asserted that ruiings during the Bush administration decided against the standing of executive orders.

ObamaCare: Stupak on Board--For Good?

Just read the news: pro-life Democrats, including Rep. Bart Stupak, have backed the health bill, noting that they have been promised a Presidential Executive Order blocking federal funding of abortions. The  story in the Times reports that President Obama has promised that "community health centers, which will get billions in new federal financing under the health care bill, cannot perform the procedure [abortions]."

The Times noted that many pro-life groups don't believe the president will keep his word. Last year President Obama invited a group of Catholic journalists to the White House to discuss his health care reform priorities. There, according to numerous reports, he promised the bill would maintain the status quo on federal funding of abortions and offer robust conscience protections. However, once the Senate bill was passed without the broad, explicit ban on federal funding of the procedure found in the Stupak amendment,  the Democratic Party leadership insisted that Stupak's amendment overreached and was unnecessary. The White House and the Secretary for Health and Human Services asserted that the Senate bill secured the status quo established by the  Hyde amendment. No member of the Democratic party leadership would even address concerns that ObamaCare's community health services initiative  opened up a new revenue stream for abortion funding not covered by Hyde. According to the Times article, transparency was only required when Stupak insisted on an out-right pledge from the president. Why would pledge be necessary if there wasn't an issue?

From the start, the President also had pledged to pass a health bill that didn't increase the federal deficit. In recent weeks, critics and advocates of the bill have traded data on this issue; the back and forth has made it hard for voters to assess the truth. But today in The Times opinion pages, Douglas Holtz-Eakin,the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, decried efforts to misrepresent the bottom-line impact of the health bill.  According to Eakin, the bill will massively increase the deficit.

The question now is: Do Stupak and his pro-life cohorts still possess any leverage that will allow them to compel President Obama to fulfill his latest pledge? Capital Hill insiders say there is still a chance this 11th-hour pact could fall apart.

UPDATE: Here's the language of the Executive Order.

Catholic Church's Healthcare Debate/War

Capital Hill has endured months of wrangling over health care reform. Now the debate has moved to the Catholic Church, as we face the cathartic moment of an extended, deeply frustrating political drama. As this battle within the Church plays out in real time, a friend of mine who works at the highest levels of "Catholic health care" wrote this message:

"The Church and shadow-Church and the Magisterium and parallel-magisterium are finally, after 45 years, on public display with a clarity that no Catholic can ignore.  If the health bill passes, with "Catholic health care" support, we will have moral crisis the likes of which we have not seen since slavery since every Catholic will be paying to provide abortion."

From the beginning, the U.S. bishops wanted to make universal health insurance a reality. That was clear. They offered just a handful of preconditions: no federal funding of abortion and robust conscience protections. President Obama said he would honor those concerns. The hierarchy was heartened by the Stupak amendment, which imposed an outright ban on federal funding of abortions. The Senate chose a different path. More wrangling, more closed door meetings. By last Friday, the Democratic party leadership walked away from negotiations with Stupak, and the USCCB had to walk away from a tempting, if flawed solution to the mounting red ink that has forced the closing of many Catholic hospitals throughout the country.

Then Sister Carol Keehan, the president and CEO of the Catholic Health Association backed the Senate bill, a move that prompted Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M.Cap. of Denver, the USCCB President, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, and Archbishop Dolan of New York to reaffirm the USCCB position--and Cardinal George explicitly  took  aim at Sister Keehan's stance. A few days pass, and two House Democrat holdouts signal their willingness to climb on board the Obamacare train.

Yesterday, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, already smarting from Rome's decision to launch an apostolic visitation that will review the practices of progressive-minded U.S.women's congregations, issued a statement of support for the Senate bill. Will the statement provide cover for a few more Democrats to back the Senate bill? We'll know the answer to that question very shortly.

Today, the orthodox Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious  jumped into the fray with a statement backing the U.S. bishops as the authoritative voice for the Catholic Church.  Meanwhile,  the USCCB has issued yet another statement that provides further ammunition for pro-life opponents of Obamacare.

I've posted the USCCB response in full below:

U.S. BISHOPS PROVIDE RESOURCES EXPLAINING FLAWS IN SENATE HEALTH CARE BILL  WASHINGTON—The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has made available several new resources explaining its calls for essential changes to the Senate health care reform bill. In a March 15 statement, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the USCCB, said that the U.S. bishops would, regretfully, have to oppose the final bill if these changes were not made.             The resources are available at: www.usccb.org/healthcare             Among them is an analysis of the abortion funding provisions of the Senate health care bill that highlights the bishops’ objections (www.usccb.org/healthcare/030410facts.pdf). Two pieces respond to recent criticisms of the bishops’ position on the health care bill, namely criticisms from Timothy Stoltzfus Jost of Washington and Lee University Law School (www.usccb.org/healthcare/jost-response.pdf) and the other regarding the funding of abortion at community health centers (www.usccb.org/healthcare/communityhealthcenters.pdf).             With so much of the health care debate focusing on the nature of the legal “status quo” of federal abortion funding, the page also features a backgrounder on current federal policy on abortion funding (www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/healthcare/abortion_funding_102309.pdf) and an analysis of the House health care bill’s Stupak Amendment (www.usccb.org/healthcare/StupakAmendmentFactsheet.pdf). Update: The USCCB just issued a sharply worded  "clarification," responding to a statement issued by the religious lobbing group, NETWORK, which sent a letter to every member of the U.S. Congress endorsing the Senate bill and purported to represent  tens of thousands of women religious. The USCCB clarification is offered in full here: "Washington—A recent letter from Network, a social justice lobby of sisters, grossly overstated whom they represent in a letter to Congress that was also released to media.  Network’s letter, about health care reform, was signed by a few dozen people, and despite what Network said, they do not come anywhere near representing 59,000 American sisters. The letter had 55 signatories, some individuals, some groups of three to five persons.  One endorser signed twice.  There are 793 religious communities in the United States.  The math is clear. Network is far off the mark." Most unusual! Hard to know where this debate/war is headed. Will it be papered over, once the dust settles? Or will the fissures revealed in these statements erupt into something more definitive--that much discussed, long anticipated schism?     Sister Mary Ann Walsh Director of Media Relations United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

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.