Fr. Roger J. Landry
The Anchor
Editorial
October 16, 2009
Eight days ago, the U.S. bishops drew a line in the sand on health care reform. Three of the bishops who have been most actively involved in the health care debate — Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Center, NY, and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City — wrote a joint letter on behalf of all U.S. Bishops to the members of Congress warning that unless some major changes are made to present legislation being debated on Capitol Hill, they will have “no choice” but to “oppose the health care bill vigorously.”
This is quite a statement from the leaders of the Church in our country, which has long been one of the strongest supporters of health care reform, but it points to the seriousness of the problems they find in the proposed legislation.
They expressed their clear “disappointment” that progress has not been made on the “three priority criteria for health care reform” they have repeatedly conveyed to Congress as grounds for the Church’s support. The first of these criteria is to “exclude mandated coverage for abortion, and incorporate longstanding policies against abortion funding and in favor of conscience rights.” Despite President Obama’s September 9 promise on national television before members of Congress that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place,” attempts to put flesh on those commitments, they note, have been defeated in the Senate.
Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ secretariat of pro-life activities, indicated that the Senate Finance Committee has recently rejected two pro-life amendments authored by Senator Orrin Hatch to put legislative teeth to the president’s words. One amendment, he said, was an attempt to repeat the abortion funding prohibition that has long governed all federal health programs: “no federal subsidies for benefits packages that cover abortion, with rare exceptions; insurers could offer supplemental abortion policies if they were funded solely by the private premiums of those choosing to purchase them.” The second one “would forbid federal agencies, and state and local governments receiving federal funds under this bill, to discriminate against health care providers that decline to perform, refer for, or pay for abortions.” Both amendments, Doerflinger lamented, were defeated.
The bishops’ letter noted that the conscience rights amendment rejected by the Senate Finance Committee had previously by passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. They said that they “remain apprehensive when amendments protecting freedom of conscience and ensuring no taxpayer money for abortion are defeated in committee votes.” Such legislative maneuvers obviously raise serious questions about whether Democratic leaders in the legislative and executive branches are being honest when they assure that “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
The bishops reiterate the principles that “no one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion,” that it is “essential that the legislation clearly apply to this new program longstanding and widely supported federal restrictions on abortion funding and mandates,” and that there be clear “protections for rights of conscience.” After reviewing present bills, they don’t mince words in their evaluation: “No current bill meets this test.” In uncharacteristically stark language, they stress that “if acceptable language in these areas cannot be found” and “if final legislation does not meet our principles,” they would have “no choice” but “vigorously” to oppose the bill as a whole. What they’re saying is that, even though health care reform is desperately needed, no amount of good in other parts of the bill could outweigh the amount of harm that could come if these two principles are not met.
The bishops mentioned the other two “priority criteria,” making “quality health care affordable and accessible to everyone, particularly those who are vulnerable and those who live at or near the poverty level” and ensuring “effective measures to safeguard the health of immigrants, their children, and all of society.” Insofar as they didn’t mention specific ways in which these objectives were not being met, however, we can infer that they are in general satisfied in these two areas. Nevertheless, their stark language with regard to the first priority indicates that they’re not going to be satisfied with obtaining merely two of three. It’s a clear sign of the seriousness of the evil that would be done by the violation of the first criterion.
The bishops of the state of Kansas — who have been among the most active local conferences of bishops in staying on top of health care reform proposals — have expanded upon the concerns articulated by the leaders of the national conference in a recent letter written to all of their representatives and senators in Washington.
“Any health care reform legislation,” they declared, must “truly be in the service of protecting human life. It is absolutely imperative that the final health care reform bill not contain any language permitting public financing of abortion. Indeed, we feel that it is necessary that the final bill contain explicit protections ensuring that public funds will not be used to finance abortion.” After noting the “most disappointing development” that amendments explicitly codifying such protections were defeated by the Senate Finance Committee, they described why unequivocal protections are so important: “Existing protections are not adequate to meet the new circumstances that would exist under some of the proposals currently before Congress. If the federal government is going to expand its regulatory power over insurance providers, or actually provide coverage itself, then existing protections against taxpayer financing of abortion must be adapted to apply fully to these changed conditions. Mandated coverage of abortion by any plan, public or private, would poison the prospects for genuine reform and render the legislation unacceptable.”
With respect to the failure up until now to ensure adequate conscience protections, they implied that we need to pay attention not merely to the President’s rhetoric but to his deeds. “The debate over health care reform legislation has brought renewed focus to President Obama’s regrettable decision earlier this year to begin the process of rolling back the conscience protection regulation put in place by the previous administration. It is critically important that doctors, nurses, and other health care personnel be able to practice medicine without being forced to be complicit in procedures they find profoundly immoral, like abortion.” Without trying to be alarmist, they also brought into focus that the consequences of the failure adequately to protect consciences will be social and not just personal: “Failure to protect conscience rights could potentially put Catholic hospitals in an untenable position, which would have grave consequences for the one out of every six patients who rely upon them for health care.”
They reiterate that they were “grateful for President Obama’s assurance in his September 9, 2009 address before Congress that ‘no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place,’” but note that for this promise to be realized,” significant changes to the health care reform bills before Congress will be necessary.”
They conclude with a healthy reminder: “Reform legislation for its own sake is not enough. Health care reform must improve health care, not merely change it.” The Catholic Church, led by her bishops, are committed to ensuring that all such changes actually do improve it, and have gone on record that they will vigorously oppose any such “reforms” that promote abortion or the trampling on the consciences of health care workers.