U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops’ final plea to Congress: Do not pass pro-abortion health care bill

In a final, urgent plea to prevent the passage of the current form of the Senate health care bill, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on Saturday evening sent a letter to Congressmen asking them to vote “no.”

“For decades,” the letter says, “the United States Catholic bishops have supported universal health care. The Catholic Church teaches that health care is a basic human right, essential for human life and dignity.”

“Our community of faith,” the bishops continue, “provides health care to millions, purchases health care for tens of thousands and addresses the failings of our health care system in our parishes, emergency rooms and shelters. This is why we as bishops continue to insist that health care reform which truly protects the life, dignity, consciences and health of all is a moral imperative and an urgent national priority.”

Nevertheless, they add, “we are convinced that the Senate legislation now presented to the House of Representatives on a ”˜take it or leave it’ basis sadly fails this test and ought to be opposed.”

Read it all.

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, * Religion News & Commentary, --The 2009 American Health Care Reform Debate, Health & Medicine, House of Representatives, Life Ethics, Office of the President, Other Churches, Politics in General, President Barack Obama, Religion & Culture, Roman Catholic, Senate

7 comments on “U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops’ final plea to Congress: Do not pass pro-abortion health care bill

  1. Jill Woodliff says:

    A prayer for the health care proposals is [url=http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/health-care-reform/]here[/url].

  2. NoVA Scout says:

    It is not clear to me that the current health measures, as problematic as they may be in other areas, have any impact on the current status of state support (or non-support) of abortion.

  3. Branford says:

    NoVa Scout – the RC bishops have laid out their concerns here:

    . . . The House bill provided that no one has to pay for other people’s abortions, while this Senate bill does not. While the Senate provides for one plan without abortion coverage in each exchange, those who select another plan in an exchange to better meet the special needs of their families will be required to pay a separate mandatory abortion fee into a fund exclusively for abortions. This new federal requirement is a far more direct imposition on the consciences of those who do not wish to pay for the destruction of unborn human life than anything currently in federal law.

    It is not those who require that the Hyde Amendment be fully applied who are obstructing reform, since this is the law of the land and the will of the American people. Rather, those who insist on expanding federal participation in abortion, require people to pay for other people’s abortions, and refuse to incorporate essential conscience protections (both within and beyond the abortion context) are threatening genuine reform. With conscience protection as with abortion funding, our goal is simply to preserve the status quo. . .

    Their call against the Stupak Executive Order also outlines the problems:

    Sent: Sun Mar 21 10:24:50 2010
    Subject: USCCB statement on EO

    To: Congressional Aides

    We’ve consulted with legal experts on the specific idea of resolving the abortion funding problems in the Senate bill through executive order. We know members have been looking into this in good faith, in the hope of limiting the damage done by abortion provisions in the bill. We believe, however, that it would not be fair to withhold what our conclusion was, as it may help members in assessing the options before them:

    “One proposal to address the serious problem in the Senate health care bill on abortion funding, specifically the direct appropriating of new funds that bypass the Hyde amendment, is to have the President issue an executive order against using these funds for abortion. Unfortunately, this proposal does not begin to address the problem, which arises from decades of federal appellate rulings that apply the principles of Roe v. Wade to federal health legislation. According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding. That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year. The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unamimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation.”

    Richard Doerflinger
    U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

  4. Dan Crawford says:

    So we will be left with an utterly corrupt health system continuing to deny people health care because of their “pre-exisiting conditions” and their inability to care. Like the Know and Do-Nothing politicians to whom they have apparently surrendered their moral authority, the Bishops have suggested nothing and supported nothing meaningful or useful to address what we have now. Good work, guys. Some of us expected something better from them, but I guess we had no right to expect anything from those who have shown such unambiguous moral strength in dealing with the sexual abuse crisis in their own institution.

  5. Tegularius says:

    Really, a more honest statement would be:

    “We believe that the most important political imperative is to ban abortion, and this is in the platform of the Republican Party. Any bill which will allow the Democrats to claim a political success must be blocked in order to return power to the Republican Party as soon as possible.”

  6. John Wilkins says:

    Not sure if the Bishops really understand the policy here. There isn’t, in fact, any change in federal policy. In fact, in the end, health care will reduce abortions because it will offer more women opportunity for health care.

  7. New Reformation Advocate says:

    John (#6),
    If you really believe that, I’ll got some prime commerical land I’d love to sell you in Florida, right in the middle of the Everglades.

    More seriously, I’m delighted that the Catholic bishops have spoken out so loud and so persistently on this, because they can’t be easily dismissed given their long track record of supporting the idea of widening health care provisions. I sure wish we could trade the HoB of TEC for the RC bishops. I’d be ten times happier with them.

    David Handy+