When the common good takes a back seat to political and corporate interests, all, especially the vulnerable, are at risk. As the largest provider of non-governmental, non-profit health care in this country, the Catholic Church, and those who work as Catholic agencies and organizations, have a special obligation to vulnerable populations, such as the unborn, those with disabilities, and those at life’s end. These populations cannot be compromised in an effort to secure “the greater good.” This is utilitarianism, seeking the greatest good for the greatest number, and never equates to the common good.
It is undeniable that the enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes public funding of programs that provide abortion on demand. No accounting practices, or requiring enrollees or employees to write separate checks for abortion coverage, changes that fact. The plan would mandate that in each regional Exchange only one of the qualifying plans not include abortion. Furthermore, there is no restriction on coverage of assisted suicide costs. President Obama’s executive order cannot override federal law. In fact, his Order merely requires adherence to the Act. Specifically, it states: “This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural , enforceable at law or in equity against the United States.” While he attempts to assure us that the seven billion new dollars for Community Health Centers will be applied consistent with the Hyde Amendment, the placement of that language within the Act does not make it subject to the cost-sharing provisions for abortion coverage. Most significantly, Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977) dictates that, without statutory provisions for the Hyde amendment within each enacted law, “essential services” are to include abortion.
Both individuals and employers will be penalized for the absence of health care coverage. There is no evidence of conscience protections for individuals or employers, who may find themselves having to write separate checks for undesired abortion procedures that happen to be in the plan of choice. There is limited evidence of conscience protections for providers, and the legislation does not provide for protection against coercion of health care providers and employers related to contraceptives or abortifacients. Here we see, most significantly, that a house divided eventually will pay the price for taking compromising positions. Yet, unfortunately, in public opposition to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ call for rejection of this legislation as it was written, the Catholic Health Association and fifty-five women religious urged its passage.
Does this mean that the president of the United States is lying to the American people?
Don