Whether it's pro-life philosophy, activism or legislation, whether it's about a current topic or a situation pro-lifers face in their own lives and work, this is the place where we'll talk about it! Please forward any comments to me, Judie Brown. Thank you!
DEVILS, DETAILS AND DECEPTION Posted: Friday August 28, 2009 at 3:28 pm EST by Judie Brown
By R.T. Neary
The devil is in the details, and the devil in H.R. 3200, the Obama administration’s so-called health care reform bill, has been anesthetized, so as to appear innocuous. But this devil is also a chameleon, created in a very crafty fashion.
Anyone who has experience with negotiating labor contracts – as does the writer – is well aware that vague language or no mention of an issue ultimately leads to the need for interpretation. What is implied in the wording becomes the real focus. Its meaning is interpreted by one party’s own appointed bureaucrats, a favorable regulator or by judge-shopping within the judicial system. The tack which all of these people will take has been predetermined, so this is at the core of the administration’s modus operandi.
This bill is, in part, about putting an indelible stamp on abortion as a way of death. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are also included by implication in this “health” package; otherwise, they would have been explicitly excluded. The true test of the Obama administration’s intent lies in the wording. The gaggle of attorneys surrounding President Barack Obama are well aware of how to write clear-cut language that would allow no “wiggle room” and would convey sincerity. Likewise, along party lines and with his support, the Democrats have steadfastly voted down amendments that would protect the right to life of innocent human beings across the entire life spectrum. The intent of Obama and his supporters has been made crystal clear.
In stark contrast, as a presidential candidate, Obama did use very clear language in his promises to the abortion industry. He said he would sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act and support abortion in every instance, including partial-birth abortion. He deemed clarity to be essential then. But now he is resorting to self-righteous verbal tap dancing while charging at town-hall meetings that his opponents are trying “to scare and mislead the public.” Who is trying to mislead whom?
Fresh from being honored by this country’s best-known “Catholic” university, the president has informed the leading abortion providers that, in view of the heat generated by Catholic opponents to his award from Notre Dame, he will forego a heads-on approach to FOCA. Why not? The same end can now be attained incrementally through passage of this health care “reform” legislation.
Although he was careful to not select a single individual with a pro-life background for a high-level position, he has nominated many who profess to be Catholic. This was part of the design. It provides cover in the shell game being played to convert this massive health care package into law and codify abortion on demand by an indirect route.
As part of its push, the administration has loosened the purse strings to fund organizations such as Catholic Charities and other front groups featuring “Catholic” in their name or whose name clearly implies a Catholic identity. They willingly respond by acting as salespeople trumpeting the need for passing the entire package, using moral arguments weighing heavily in favor of obtaining coverage for the millions now uninsured. The pitch is always cloaked in Christian-sounding generalities, rather than specifics. At first blush, it sounds compassionate, but it withers away quickly when challenged on substance. All of it is leftist demagoguery repackaged.
Though he was too ill to attend his sister Eunice’s funeral, the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy was nonetheless exploited (apparently with family approval) to promote what is essentially a power grab. Unfortunately, Senator Kennedy apparently did not focus on ensuring that the health care overhaul would respect the right to life of all human beings, from creation to natural death – as he should have done in his waning days, in reparation for his many years of abortion advocacy.
Instead, the proposal is fraught with unanswered questions about the motives behind it – and its ultimate consequences. What a sad scenario! I contacted Senator Kennedy’s Washington office to propose the following wording in the Senate version: “The intent of this legislation is to promote the health of all human beings. Nothing in the wording shall be construed to include counseling for or the funding of abortion, euthanasia or assisted suicide.”
If this 1,100-plus-page document – or even one with only 600 words – is passed, Obama’s advisors and bureaucrats will start chipping away to undermine and ultimately destroy conscience clauses as well as parental consent requirements, waiting periods and every other restriction on the destruction of life in utero.
Obama is clearly feticidal – and infanticidal as well. He proved it as the Illinois state senator who voted three times to deny medical care to a child born alive as a result of a failed attempt to abort him or her. And Obama expressly voiced the belief that a Supreme Court opinion cut out of whole cloth in 1973 took precedence over any right to life one could claim for a defenseless human being in need of medical care – if the intent was to legally end the life of that human being.
Abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are not health care. Each stops a beating human heart permanently. Health care is designed to keep that heart beating until it ceases to function on its own. We now have the hearts of over a million humans stopped legally each year. That figure would grow drastically under Obamacare. Yes, where this man wants to take the country is a very scary place.
The primary issue in the entire health care debate is not whether some reform is needed; it is how we should approach the issue – through a blanket overhaul or by breaking down the effort into its component parts and addressing them individually? Moreover, if explicitly worded exclusions for abortion, assisted suicide or euthanasia counseling and/or funding are not added to the legislation, any deal must be broken before it moves to a conference committee – on which the administration is heavily relying to accomplish its goals.
The president of the United States has an atrocious record of disregard for preborn babies’ human dignity and right to life, which logically leads to the conclusion that he harbors the same attitude toward the defenseless elderly and infirm.
Obama must be held to a moral standard far superior to that which he has thus far displayed toward life-and-death matters. He is showing all his cards in H.R. 3200 and gives us no alternative but to vigorously oppose this bill and defeat it. Our efforts cannot be relaxed until this is accomplished.
R.T. Neary writes from Medfield, Massachusetts, and is the director of Pro-Life Massachusetts, an American Life League Associate group.
forced vaccinations (untested, deadly) in massachusetts, does not sound to be pro-life to me, read the above link. Marie | August 28, 2009
Judie,
Thought this might help you.
Canons 1184-1185 say:
"Canon 1184 ??1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.
"??2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.
"Canon 1185. Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals." Nick | August 31, 2009
Marie
It is not pro-life, and it smacks of a bit of totalitarianism as well!
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 1, 2009
Nick
If only I were a Canon lawyer! Thank you very much and God be with you.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 1, 2009
So much hate.
One holy catholic apostolic and republican church. Brian | September 2, 2009
Dear Brian
There is no hate; there is an enormity of truth. We cannot water down that truth for any political agenda, to the left or to the right of us. Christ was not a politician and we belong to Him, not to politics.
ANOTHER UNHOLY ALLIANCE IN CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE? Posted: Thursday August 27, 2009 at 4:42 pm EST by Judie Brown
By Gail Besse
Why would a thriving Catholic hospital endanger its ethical mission by teaming up with a medical conglomerate that supports abortion, contraception, the morning-after pill and human embryonic stem cell research?
While pro-life Americans nationwide battle the Obama administration juggernaut – working to defend doctors’ conscience rights and to exclude abortion from national health care – some in the “Live Free or Die” state are at odds with their own diocese.
It’s a situation described as “tragic and ironic” by members of New Hampshire Right to Life (NHRTL), an American Life League Associate group. They say the diocese is poised to surrender the independence of its 330-bed hospital in a convoluted agreement that’s evidently meant to maintain ritual purity while “integrating” with the secular system.
Led by Kathleen Souza and Barbara Hagan, both Catholics and former New Hampshire state legislators, the pro-lifers have vowed to stop this “unholy alliance.” “Dartmouth is involved in abortions throughout the state, heavily involved in fertility research, embryonic stem cell research, selective reduction abortion – almost everything the Church is against,” said Souza.
DHH is a formidable presence in New Hampshire and eastern Vermont. It comprises the Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon; and the D-H Clinic, which includes physician group practices in Concord, Keene, Manchester and Nashua. It’s affiliated with the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Dartmouth Medical School.
Adding CMC to its regional system would give DHH a hospital presence 60 miles from Boston. But CMC and DHH are so opposed to each other on sanctity of life matters that this collaboration means the hospital will deviate from its underlying religious mission, according to the 25,000-member NHRTL.
“Catholic people built this hospital with their pennies and dimes,” Hagan said. “The bishop has the ultimate say over its fate, and he’s putting himself in the position of being undercut. His powers are either diluted or eliminated throughout the agreement.”
Souza and Hagan, on behalf of NHRTL and “the pro-life community in greater Manchester,” on August 11 filed a formal Memo of Opposition with the charitable trusts division of the New Hampshire attorney general’s office. They’ve submitted more than 500 pages of supporting documentation that they contend proves the venture violates both Catholic ethics and the law that protects the public trust regarding charities. And they’ve submitted a similar package to the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC) for its opinion.
“D-H doctors have testified in the state legislature against the diocese on end-of-life issues,” Souza explained. “Their chief palliative care doctor helped get legislation passed that led to the state issuing a dangerous ‘living will’ called the New Hampshire Advance Directive.
“Dartmouth refers girls to Planned Parenthood in Manchester, where we have a picket going five days a week. If you partner with D-H and give them credibility, it’s a weak moral argument to say, ‘They do it under a different roof, so we won’t be culpable,’” she said.
Manchester Bishop John McCormack and the attorney general’s office have final say over the plan, which both CMC and DHH hope to finalize by December 31, according to their affiliation agreement, dated July 22 of this year. The bishop has conditionally approved the proposal but says he’s still reviewing it. He declined to answer questions posed by American Life League about it, or to meet with several concerned pro-life actvisits, despite their repeated requests this spring.
According to a statement on AHealthierTomorrow.org (a web site unveiled July 22 to explain the plan), the goal is to “create an integrated healthcare delivery system that maximizes Manchester-based resources aimed at increasing access to enhanced quality patient care.”
Bishop McCormack has stated, “As bishop, I am committed to preserve Catholic Medical Center to be a true Catholic healthcare institution, one that fulfills all the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic hospitals.” He is referring to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care. Part Six of this document, titled “Forming New Partnerships with Health Care Organizations and Providers,” provides norms for guiding the faithful through the dangers inherent in Catholic-secular hospital mergers and other minefields. It notes, “The risk of scandal cannot be underestimated when partnerships are not built upon common values and moral principles.”
But since the plan was announced, DHH officials have been consistent. There will be no curtailment of its reproductive health "services” such as contraception and abortion, according to repeated statements to the media provided by spokesman Jason Aldous and other DHH officials.
“Where’s the truth? Black can’t be white and white can’t be black,” said Souza. “A Catholic institution doesn’t only have an obligation to serve health care needs but also to preach the gospel,” added Hagan. “Partnering with an entity that stands in direct philosophical opposition is a breach of the Catholic community’s support and trust.D-H has no religious purpose – only charitable, scientific and educational.”
CMC, on the other hand, legally exists to carry on the work of the Church under its parent corporation, the Catholic Medical Center Healthcare System (CMCHS), which is a “juridic person” of the diocese under canon law.
The agreement calls for the diocese to basically relinquish the hospital’s independence, as DHH will become the new “sole member” of CMC’s parent company. A DHH Leadership Council, composed of officials of all its regional members, will have ultimate power over CMC’s finances and strategic planning, as well as the appointment of its trustees and president. “You can kiss control goodbye if you don’t have the votes on the board.” Hagan pointed out. “It’s a corporate shell game as far as I’m concerned.” Souza likened the legal reorganization to “Russian nested dolls.”
The agreement stipulates that Catholic ethical norms will be followed, but also acknowledges that all parties understand sometimes they may not be. In those cases, the Leadership Council gives representatives of CMC and its parent, CMCHS, the chance to “recuse herself or himself and have no involvement in such issues.” “Does that sound like Pope John Paul’s ‘stand up and proclaim the Gospel?’” Hagan asked. “They’ll walk away and not defend the faith.”
Among other issues raised in the Memo of Objections is the bishop’s “absence at the negotiating table.” The guidance the bishop’s been given comes from an ethicist who’s in the “compromising” position of also being a diocesan employee, the memo notes. Peter Cataldo is both pro-life director for the diocese and a CMC advisor. And although the bishop has said he’s consulted two other ethicists as well, he has declined to name them.
Another objection is the lack of public input during initial planning. CMC and DHH have been cooperating on joint ventures for more than five years, but the “holding company affiliation” (they’re not terming it a merger) was not publicized until February. A few talks between diocesan and hospital officials and invited pro-life leaders did take place this spring, but Souza said these were “more of a ‘dog-and-pony show’ than a serious exchange of information.”
“We complained to the bishop in writing following each meeting, repeating the same concerns each time,” she said. “Each reply from the bishop assured us that our worries were unfounded – but again – no answers were provided.”
Pro-lifers felt the clock was just being allowed to run out. “Mistrust on ethics will doom CMC's new affiliation,” predicted former Manchester alderman Rich Gerard in a July 27-August 2 Manchester Expresscolumn. Community forums will be held in the fall, but dates and locations have not been announced yet.
NHRTL also contends that Dartmouth will “rapidly devour CMC, engulfing all of New Hampshire and Vermont.” In a July 25 column in the Concord Monitor, former New Hampshire state representative Donald Welch agreed. “Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center is a leader in health-care innovation and care, but its business model is predatory,” he observed. “It is not interested in being a bridesmaid. “Catholic Medical Center would be an afterthought, its mission and glorious past notwithstanding.”
The hospital’s roots go back almost 120 years. In the 1890s, Manchester Catholics built two hospitals, both run by religious sisters: Sacred Heart on the city’s east side and Notre Dame on the west side. In 1978, the two hospitals combined into CMC.
In the 1990s, the hospital merged for a few years with Elliot Hospital of Manchester to form Optima Health, a venture that proved to be ill-conceived, unpopular and unsuccessful. The merger was dissolved; the hospitals continued independently and flourished.
“The successful campaign to save Catholic Medical Center from extinction appears not to be appreciated by Giles or her management team,” Welch said. “It is once again being handled like a financial asset rather than a sacred trust.”
Souza and Hagan – who helped expose problems inherent in Optima – contend the Manchester plan would create even more of a scandal than the unresolved situation in the Archdiocese of Boston, whose Caritas Christi health care system is still a player with an insurance company that refers women for abortions, contraceptives and sterilizations.
Following much negative publicity, in June, at the 11th hour, Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley did nix the hospital system becoming an outright partner with the company, but he has yet to divulge details of the current plan. He has also declined to release the opinion he sought in March from the NCBC.
Colleen McCormick, an anesthesiologist with a graduate degree in medical ethics, has attended the Manchester talks. “Washington is dying to squelch conscience protections,” she observed. “Once Catholic entities have physicians who have no problems with the culture of death, rights of conscience will be easier to overcome. I think we should be withdrawing from any liaisons at all between Catholic and secular health care providers.”
Asked to comment on mergers in general, Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education for the NCBC, advised, “Such mergers can be pursued as long as the Catholic health care provider is clear about the meaning of its Catholic identity and remains intent on upholding that identity in all the negotiations and arrangements leading to the merger and subsequent to its realization. This means that the Catholic institution (and the merged institution later) will be bound by the provisions of the Ethical and Religious Directives. The possibility of scandal must be meticulously avoided.”
By contrast, Hagan said, in this case, the maze of legal documents stipulates that “the directives will be followed – except when they won’t.” She added, “We’re praying that the NCBC and the attorney general’s office will conclude, as we have, that this proposed affiliation is an attempt to do the impossible.”
In his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae(The Gospel of Life), Pope John Paul II was clear:
“[W]e are facing an enormous and dramatic clash between good and evil, death and life, the ‘culture of death’ and the ‘culture of life.’ We find ourselves not only ‘faced with’ but necessarily ‘in the midst of’ this conflict. We are all involved and we all share in it, with the inescapable responsibility of choosing to be unconditionally pro-life.” (Section 28)
Gail Besse is a Catholic freelance writer from Boston. Her work has been published in the National Catholic Register, Our Sunday Visitor and various Massachusetts secular daily papers and diocesan publications.
Regarding your protest of Senator Kennedy:
This is one more example of how fanatical some parts of the anti-abortion lobby are. They have lost focus (as have some of the bishops). Abortion is not the only moral issue. Kennedy's stance on a whole range of social justice issues which are in agreement with Catholic social teaching , economic justice, immigration, health care, is also crucial in considering his legacy. And let God the merciful evaluate his whole life.
Posted By: Susan Rakoczy
Didn't Jesus tell the story about the father who was waiting, and looking in the distance for the return of his wayward son, and welcomed him home with open arms and a feast?
I pray that the Senators slain brothers and other members of his family welcom him home to the heavely Camelot to share eternity with the loving, forgiving God and father of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Posted By: Tony
After all the good that Mr. Kennedy did for the poor and downtrodden, his funeral arrangements are now being lambasted because he was a staunch defender of a woman's right to choose. How judgmental! How Pharisee-like! None of us are without sin. Does that mean God loves us any less? This is exactly the kind of mean-spirited hypocrisy that drives people away from our Holy Mother Church.
Posted By: Charles Elder
RIP
shame on the hard of heart
Posted By: vanderson
I am most delighted that there are some Catholics who follow totally and exactly the teachings and example of Jesus so that they can rightly cast judgement on others - It is good to know that there are some of us Catholics who are even holier than Jesus. What a relief. I thought that I was alone in all of that.
Posted By: charles bolser
This is where faith is put to the test. The condition of the Senator's soul is between him, his Creator and his confessor.
What I am fearful of is the coverage of the communion line at the funeral.
Posted By: Joe
My God! Have these people no decency?
Posted By: Greg Smith
Can we not celebrate as catholics the entire span of life issues and acknowledged that Senator Kennedy fought for human rights, the poor, the immigrant and the marginalized? When we seem to pick at someone and question motives, we cause grave confusion within society.
Posted By: Lucy Clynes
GET A GRIP! Teddy Kennedy is dead, a horrible, slow, painful death. Where was Jesus? Right there with him sharing his pain and anguish.
Posted By: roseanne montogmery
Ignatius | August 28, 2009
Ted Kennedy claimed he was a voice for the voiceless. Unborn babies are definitely voiceless, but Ted Kennedy did not speak for them. No, he had no concern for them. Who disputes that? And so, who can justify a Catholic funeral for him. The bishops should have corrected him a long time ago, which they did not. So, no, it would not be expected that they would do what is right at this point, and deny him a Catholic funeral. God is in control of Ted Kennedy's ultimate fate. The bishops are responsible for the rest of us in their care. As long as they timidly allow politicians to be the voice of "Catholicism", then the Church will suffer from confusion and error. David Volk | August 28, 2009
Dear Ignatius
We asked for prayers for the repose of the soul of Senator Kennedy, and recognize at the same time that barring a public announcement by the Cardinal that Kennedy had sought forgiveness and reconciliation with Christ for the millions of abortions over which he presided by advocating and supporting abortion, the Senator separated Himself from the Church. That is perhaps the saddest aspect of all, is it not.
Rather than rant at us and attempt to number the direct murder of the preborn child with a host of other so-called issues, why not spend your time productively, praying not only for him but for his family and all those expectant mothers who now mourn the deaths of their babies, murdered by abortion.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | August 29, 2009
David
Yes, indeed, and as one very astute fellow just advised me, Canon law would prevent such a funeral from taking place if anyone bothered to read and heed it. Here are the pertinent Canons
Canons 1184-1185 say:
"Canon 1184.1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.
Canon 1184.2 If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.
"Canon 1185. Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals."
Let us pray for the Church and never cease defending Her and Christ's truth.
FACT CHECKING FOR THE COMMON GOOD Posted: Wednesday August 26, 2009 at 4:46 pm EST by Judie Brown
Just this morning, I received a nice phone call from someone who does not believe in e-mail, nor does he “do” e-mail! That’s right; he considers it among the most problematic ways to connect with other human beings. As he said, “We have voices; we are people; let’s communicate that way.”
I agree with his general premise. God gave us a voice, a human identity and the capacity to be present with our fellow human beings in many ways. On the other hand, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the ability to use the internet for the purposes of verification. Of course, we have to make phone calls, write letters and do all that is needed to be accurate, but so much information is right at our fingertips.
Having said that, it is strange that there is so much crossfire on what is or is not in health care reform proposals! And why all the name calling? And for heaven’s sake, at the end of the day, why are we trusting the government to do this anyway?
Here a few facts about the matter, some numerical, some philosophical and some simply profound.
For example, have you ever heard of FactCheck.org? Thanks to LifeSiteNews.com and LifeNews.com, we heard about it two days ago. So we went to the source to find out what an organization that describes itself as “a nonpartisan, nonprofit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics” is saying about health care reform.
In its front-page analysis of whether abortion coverage is included in the various health care reform bills, titled “Abortion: Which Side is Fabricating?” author Brooks Jackson makes this stunning observation:
The truth is that bills now before Congress don’t require federal money to be used for supporting abortion coverage. So the president is right to that limited extent. But it’s equally true that House and Senate legislation would allow a new "public" insurance plan to cover abortions, despite language added to the House bill that technically forbids using public funds to pay for them. Obama has said in the past that "reproductive services" would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that. Low- and moderate-income persons who would choose the "public plan" would qualify for federal subsidies to purchase it. Private plans that cover abortion also could be purchased with the help of federal subsidies. Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions "fabrications."
Clearly, in one way or another, abortion is in there. Case closed!
So, my next question is how many Catholic bishops have clearly defined what the Church has to say about this? Here are quotes from the three we were able to identify.
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, the latest Catholic prelate to weigh in on health care reform, wrote a remarkable editorial in which he makes several salient points:
No system that allows or helps fund — no matter how subtly or indirectly — the killing of unborn children, or discrimination against the elderly and persons with special needs, can bill itself as "common ground." Doing so is a lie…
Health care reform is vital. That's why America's bishops have supported it so vigorously for decades. They still do. But fast-tracking a flawed, complex effort this fall, in the face of so many growing and serious concerns, is bad policy. It's not only imprudent; it's also dangerous. As Sioux City's Bishop R. Walker Nickless wrote last week, "no health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform."
If Congress and the White House want to genuinely serve the health-care needs of the American public, they need to slow down, listen to people's concerns more honestly — and learn what the "common good" really means.
And, as referenced in Archbishop Chaput’s excellent summary of the facts, Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa, was equally articulate in his remarks:
[T]he Catholic Church does not teach that “health care” as such, without distinction, is a natural right. The “natural right” of health care is the divine bounty of food, water, and air without which all of us quickly die. This bounty comes from God directly. None of us own it, and none of us can morally withhold it from others. The remainder of health care is a political, not a natural, right, because it comes from our human efforts, creativity and compassion. As a political right, health care should be apportioned according to need, not ability to pay or to benefit from the care. We reject the rationing of care. Those who are sickest should get the most care, regardless of age, status, or wealth. But how to do this is not self-evident. The decisions that we must collectively make about how to administer health care therefore fall under “prudential judgment.”
Third, in that category of prudential judgment, the Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care. Unlike a prudential concern like national defense, for which government monopolization is objectively good – it both limits violence overall and prevents the obvious abuses to which private armies are susceptible – health care should not be subject to federal monopolization. Preserving patient choice (through a flourishing private sector) is the only way to prevent a health care monopoly from denying care arbitrarily, as we learned from HMOs in the recent past….
…Only if we again foster a culture of life can we perpetuate the economic justice of taxing workers to pay health care for the poor. Without a growing population of youth, our growing population of retirees is outstripping our distribution systems. In a culture of death such as we have now, taxation to redistribute costs of medical care becomes both unjust and unsustainable.
We also have Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Oregon, responding to LifeSiteNews.com after it approached him for an e-mail interview. A portion of that interview reads,
Vasa noted that he believes "the notion of providing more comprehensive health insurance coverage is a just and right thing to do." However, he said: "that does not mean that THIS health insurance plan, only because it promises comprehensive health insurance coverage, must be supported.
"In effect, should we support giving poisoned water to the thirsty? I think not."
The insights of these holy men of God, who understand the stakes and are willing to spend their moral capital on God’s justice rather than man’s feckless, ever-changing attitudes, should be acknowledged, reflected upon and understood within the full breadth of Catholic social teaching.
As Bishop Nickless points out, some have argued that abortion is a fundamental human right. In a sense, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church addresses that notion. Here is the quote:
166. The demands of the common good are dependent on the social conditions of each historical period and are strictly connected to respect for and the integral promotion of the person and his fundamental rights. These demands concern above all the commitment to peace, the organization of the State's powers, a sound juridical system, the protection of the environment, and the provision of essential services to all, some of which are at the same time human rights: food, housing, work, education and access to culture, transportation, basic health care, the freedom of communication and expression, and the protection of religious freedom. Nor must one forget the contribution that every nation is required in duty to make towards a true worldwide cooperation for the common good of the whole of humanity and for future generations also.
The teaching is not that a state or federal government should be controlling or dictating health care for those in need, for the Compendium teaches in Section 351, “The action of the State and of other public authorities must be consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and create situations favorable to the free exercise of economic activity. It must also be inspired by the principle of solidarity and establish limits for the autonomy of the parties in order to defend those who are weaker.”
Therefore, for those who have recognized the folks currently in charge of the U.S. government for what they are, based on their partnership with Planned Parenthood, the abortion industry and the “death with dignity” proponents, we can conclude that health care reform in the hands of federal lawmakers is a very bad idea.
Is there anything here you disagrtee with? God bless you. Dave
A number of years ago I calculated the number of poor families in the US and pondered how the Church might respond to their needs. I concluded that if each parish adopted two poor families, poverty in the US would vanish. I suggested that the size of the parish or church determine how many families they would support, with an average of two per parish. The support would include all that was necessary for them to be a part of the community: food, job opportunities, education, and health care. Each parish voluntarily provides all these essentials, and poverty vanishes.
I believe that this idea is still appropriate, and further, is fully in accord with the Christian Principle of Subsidiarity which has been an integral part of Catholic Social teaching for over a century and states that only things that need to be done at the national or ???federal??? level should be done by a ???federal??? government. It allows for things that can be done at the local or even smaller level to be done at those levels. Human society does not need a State that regulates and controls everything, but a State that generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est , 28). Where individuals, intermediary groups, or small private groups of persons can address the particular exigencies and realities of a given situation, it is best to defer to such smaller groups because human beings need flexibility and autonomy in order to effectively address their particular circumstances. Pope Benedict XVI describes it best when he summarizes the Principle of Subsidiarity as ???the coordination of society???s activities in a way that supports the internal life of the local communities.???
The current ???crises??? in health care is a perfect example of the need for action on the part of our Church through its smallest organization, the local Parish. I am of the belief that the poor are not the responsibility of government; that government (hereafter referred to as Caesar) involvement in this area can only mean destruction of the dignity and sanctity of human life. I cannot help but wonder why the Bishops, who I admire greatly on many issues and in the depth of their faith, support Caesar???s approach to health care if certain conditions are met. I continue to be amazed that the pressure they (rightly) promoted to resist FOCA (the so-called Freedom of Choice Act) is not being brought as forcefully to the forefront in the current climate where Caesar is attempting to confiscate 10% of the Nation???s wealth and essentially control every aspect of our lives through the ???health care initiative???. Is the sanctity of life less important for the unborn and the vulnerable when weighed against the promise of health care for all? And what assurances do we have that this legislation would provide the kind of health care that respects the human person?
The right to life is the fundamental right. Nothing precedes it, nothing is more profoundly important than this. That said, the extension of this fundamental right to other areas of life that support it is not so simple, and not necessarily correct. In my humble opinion, a ???fundamental right??? is one which we can enjoy without imposing on others to make it happen. Any extension of this; for example, to the provision of food, shelter, or health care as a basic requirement to realize the right to life requires either the virtue of charity or compulsion. I submit that compulsion is outside the proper avenue of nurture, and that Caesar is not a proper or necessary participant.
If Caesar is a necessary and invited participant, then how do we reconcile the compulsion that follows with the Parable of the Good Samaritan? Remember: those who expect rewards from Caesar must pay the price, and there is absolutely no doubt this will cost many of the innocent and helpless their lives. For example, we know that, no matter what ???safeguards??? any health care bill has in it, there will sooner or later be rationing of care. This is true in every country that has adopted this kind of program. The onus, of course, will fall on the elderly and disabled. To understand how awful this will be just look at the way our nation???s veterans are treated by the Obama administration. See http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=1866 for an explanation of this terrifying approach to the well being of America???s heroes
The Catholic Church provides wonderful health care for more than 10% of the population of the United States. Is it not possible for the Church also to provide health care and other support for those in need through its parishes? Remember the two families per parish description described above. Couldn't the Church provide the needed help or even perhaps form a national health insurance company that provides insurance with premiums based on a sliding scale depending on family income. Wouldn't this be a better approach than the current statist approach to helping the uninsured? Surely the Church can do better than Caesar. The invitation to the poor to become part of our Christian family and our generosity to and unconditional love for them will no doubt bring them into our faith community. Can you imagine?
Dr. Dave Rusch | August 26, 2009
Thank you for this excellent analysis!
As always, thanks be to God for AB Chaput and Bp Vasa - and the new voice on the scene: Bishop Nickless. Please dear Shepherds - the faithful long for sound guidance and clear voices such as yours.
May Our Lord and Our Lady be with you! Fr. William J Kuchinsky | August 26, 2009
Dr. Rusch
The principles that you present remind me of the good old days when Catholic charity really meant reaching out to help, not reaching out for government dollars! You are correct.
CECILE RICHARDS’ TORTUOUS TANTRUM Posted: Tuesday August 25, 2009 at 4:29 pm EST by Judie Brown
A few days ago, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards wrote a rather contemptuous column about the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The tenor of her remarks speaks for itself, as her opening salvo proclaims,
Does anyone else see the irony in the U.S. bishops wanting to define universal health care as covering everything except for what they don’t support? Under this theory, I suppose women are supposed to wait to see just exactly how the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops comes down on a variety of health care needs to understand what in fact will be considered universal. Since when does universal health care mean denying comprehensive reproductive health care supported by the majority of Americans?...
The root cause of unsafe abortion is unintended pregnancy, a result of the lack of affordable and accessible contraception for women. The correlation between higher contraceptive use and lower maternal mortality is well established.
Indeed, it would seem that she despises any teaching of the Catholic Church that does not conform to her opinion of what comprises health care for women. But wait a minute! Could it be that PP actually considers sucking the life out of a human being or cutting him to pieces with a knife a form of reproductive health care? Of course it does.
But wait! The scenario gets even more bizarre at this juncture. As reported by the Catholic News Agency, Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the USCCB’s Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, takes Richards to task:
“Our major arguments on this have not been about contraception,” [Doerflinger] clarified. “She likes to change the subject.
“But it is the case that there is a great deal of evidence that contraceptive programs fail to reduce abortions. We cite the primary sources for that on our website so that people can read them for themselves.”…
Doerflinger said the bishops’ materials about health care reform have been centered on supporting universal coverage, but opposing mandated abortion coverage.
“She keeps talking about how we’re trying to diminish a right,” he said of Richards. “A mandate is not consistent with a personal choice. If what she’s talking about is people’s personal ability to choose whether or not to buy abortion coverage, we’re not going to oppose legislation that allows that."
What is happening in this discourse is quite interesting and, one might argue, troubling at the same time. It is quite true that the USCCB is against mandated abortion coverage in a universal health care system; however, the USCCB has not demanded that contraceptive coverage, sterilization coverage and other such immoral aspects of PP’s agenda be removed. Indeed, the USCCB argues for abortion neutrality, which is what Doerflinger is getting at when he explains that the USCCB is against mandated abortion coverage, not the availability of abortion coverage as a personal choice.
Obviously, Richards is not interested in splitting hairs with the USCCB; she just wants mandatory coverage for killing, period!
In response to Richards’ flagrantly erroneous claims, Human Life International president Rev. Thomas Euteneuer issued a statement wherein he applauded the Catholic bishops for standing up to Richards’ deceit and explained how wrong Richards is to claim that contraceptives actually curtail the number of babies killed by abortion:
[A]mong her many factual errors Ms. Richards claims that, despite the findings of virtually every study on the subject, expanded access to contraception will somehow reduce the number of abortions. What does she recommend, force-feeding young women contraception? How much more access can be granted to this environment-destroying, blood-clot causing, biology-altering chemical that, as the Catholic Church predicted, has resulted in more, not less, abortions?
Amen, Father Euteneuer! Richards is constantly depicting contraception as a solution to the “problem” of “unwanted pregnancies.” She also denies the fact that these chemicals can abort a preborn child.
But wait! It gets even worse. Richards’ diatribe against the Catholic bishops is obviously designed to deflect attention away from the fact that, according to recent news reports, America could face a “health care reform” law that not only mandates funding for child killing by abortion, but also forces it to subsidize PP in ways few could now imagine. Yes, PP could be in classrooms across this nation, peddling its lies and its products at taxpayers’ expense!
Richards isn’t about to bring this fact out! We have already established that Richards and truthful statements are not in the same ballpark and maybe not even on the same planet. But Victor Medina does expose the truth:
Under Title V (“Other Provisions”) of Obama’s “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009” (the official name for the bill, H.R. 3200), Subtitle B (School-Based Health Clinics, or SBHC) outlines a program in which the federal government would fund clinics in or near the nation’s schools. The administration of these clinics will not rest with the school nurse or anyone who answers to the school administration or parents. Under Section 399Z, “the SBHC sponsoring facility assumes all responsibility for the SBHC administration, operations, and oversight.”
According to the bill, a “sponsoring facility” is “a hospital, a public health department, a community health center, a nonprofit health care agency, (or) a local educational agency.” Such broad wording outlining the qualifications for government funds and access to schoolchildren could open the door for groups like Planned Parenthood to operate the clinics in schools with no oversight and full federal government support. The organization currently operates over 850 clinics nationwide.
The clinics would be funded by federal grants awarded by the Obama administration, which has made it clear that they expect Planned Parenthood to play an active role in their proposed health care system. In the midst of the recent national debate this summer and during the Congressional recess over the health care plan, members of the Obama administration were meeting with Planned Parenthood staff and making strong overtures over their potential role in health care reform.
Hello? Cecile, are you there? Why aren’t you touting this fact, which is printed in black and white in the House bill?
This report reveals what PP's endgame really is. It is the reason PP can decry anything the USCCB puts forth. It matters not if the bishops take a stand for eliminating all references to abortion, whether privately or publicly funded. It matters not whether the USCCB addresses contraception and sterilization, demanding that those so-called reproductive health services be eliminated. PP just has to keep the guns blazing in order to deflect attention away from what would really occur if Obamacare became public policy.
Once PP is firmly ensconced in the driver’s seat, brainwashing children right and left while American taxpayers foot the bill (paying perhaps millions more than anyone could have imagined), it need not worry about anything. It’s been working toward this moment for 40 years. Ever since PP’s hand first went into the government pocket and came out with a fistful of dollars, the skids have been greased for what could soon become the ultimate victory envisioned in PP’s scheme.
This is one of the reasons why we have repeatedly begged our Catholic bishops to make it clear that the USCCB’s Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services provide the foundation for their position on Obamacare.
There is no doubt that our nation needs health care reform, but a plan that would be implemented under the culture of death’s growing shadow should never even be considered. President Obama has shown us where he stands; now it is time for the Catholic bishops to show us where they stand, not only on mandatory abortion coverage, but on all those life-and-death matters that would be profoundly affected by national "health care reform” implemented under a president unmistakably committed to promoting the culture of death.
We are grateful to the USCCB for responding to PP’s latest fiction, but much more is needed. We reiterate our request that the USCCB make it clear for one and all that genuine health care reform will not promote, provide nor include coverage for any of the following:
• abortion
• contraception
• sterilization
• human embryonic stem cell therapy
• euthanasia
• assisted suicide
• health care rationing
If any of these things is included in a final "health care reform” bill, the death knell will be sounded for Catholic health care in America, and sadly, Cecile’s tortuous tantrum will become a victory cry.
WHO IS REALLY ‘WEE-WEED UP’? Posted: Monday August 24, 2009 at 3:21 pm EST by Judie Brown
President Obama has resorted to an incredibly infantile phrase—”wee-weed up”—to degrade his "health care reform" detractors. While the White House has now explained this remark as the president describing opponents of his health care debacle as agitated bed wetters, the truth is sobering—not silly. In fact, Obama’s opponents are perhaps a bit more honest than he would like; thus, the insults.
Having said that, the worrying fact is that there is still an enormous number of well-meaning people, including Catholics, who simply do not want to see the truth about what is and is not contained in the various proposals currently floating around Congress. One example recently came my way via a Facebook comment.
A very sincere Catholic wrote to me about American Life League’s opposition to the "health care reform" plan, even though our concerns stem from the fact that the proposals are based on imposed death as a cost-saving measure. The more I read and reread her earnest viewpoint on the matter, the more I am convinced that far too many Catholic Americans have never heard of the Church’s teachings. Either that, or they do not understand and accept them. Such confusion results from a type of Catholic ignorance which Americans like Obama count on, day in and day out.
I am so concerned about it that I want to share her comments, and then provide the reasons why she is fundamentally misguided.
Dear Ms. Brown,
I am also a Catholic. I do not believe in abortion and have marched many times in the annual March for Life. I have been ridiculed by onlookers but have always stood firm in my beliefs. Nevertheless, I believe President Obama is a good man. I believe if he says he is not in fact planning to fund abortions that his health care package will not fund them. I believe in everything he stands for except this one thing. I know it is a very BIG thing. But I believe in nothing the Republican Party stands for except this one thing. I stand with the Pro-Life Democrats (most of whom are Catholics) because I believe in uplifting the poor, the worker, the homeless and downtrodden. I believe in cleaning up and taking responsibility for our environment and endangered animals. I believe that life is sacred, Ms. Brown, even the lives of the millions already here who, maybe through no fault of their own, maybe through their own fault, need a hand up. I believe if we have a government that can help, that needs to happen if we are to follow the footsteps of Christ as a nation...
This should not be a political issue at all, and you, Ms. Brown, should do your work in that way, not involving yourself in politics.
If, in fact, abortions are funded, you can expose that once the legislation takes effect. I do not believe the president is a liar so I do not believe they will be funded. In any case, it will not cause more abortions to take place than would have taken place otherwise. And it will definitely not be tax dollars that pay for abortions since the dollars the program will run on will not be tax dollars. Anyone who wants to opt out can certainly do that and pay nothing. —B.E.
My correspondent does not understand that pro-life organizations and spokespeople who maintain their credibility are those who have not and will not align themselves with any political party. The reason for this is simple: Our “party,” if you will, consists of those who have no voice, either because they are not yet born or are in danger of becoming victims of euthanasia. They are people incapable of defending their right to life. These human beings do not wear a partisan label; they wear only a hope that we will defend them and be their voice.
B.E.’s belief in uplifting the poor, the worker, the homeless and downtrodden is not only a reflection of the Beatitudes, in which we all should believe, but a fundamental mandate for pro-life people, because our commitment to human dignity does not end at birth, nor does it end with imposed death. We are pro-life in every sense and stand with B.E.
When B.E. goes on to express her belief in being responsible for the earth and all that is a part of it, she reflects the stewardship that God has assigned to us. It is indeed our responsibility to respect and care for that which He has created and entrusted to us, His children. In fact, it is what Pope John Paul II described in Centesimus annusas the foundational characteristic of a just culture:
All human activity takes place within a culture and interacts with culture. For an adequate formation of a culture, the involvement of the whole man is required, whereby he exercises his creativity, intelligence, and knowledge of the world and of people. Furthermore, he displays his capacity for self-control, personal sacrifice, solidarity and readiness to promote the common good. (Section 51)
And it is here, at this critical juncture between the individual and his fellow man, that a serious rupture occurs between what is perceived by some as the U.S. president’s honorable goals and the reality of what he intends.
There can be no solidarity unless man accepts his moral obligation to defend the weakest in our midst. As anyone who follows American Life League’s mission knows, there are countless numbers of preborn children killed daily by human embryonic stem cell research, early abortion chemicals marketed as contraceptives, as well as surgical and medical abortion. Each of these individual persons is a member of our human family, and their fate is part of our responsibility if, indeed, we wish to live in a just society.
So, when President Obama claims, for example, that we who have found abortion in the "health care reform" proposals are “bearing false witness” against him, we decry his arrogance. Perhaps B.E. has not seen the fallacy of his public pronouncements, but all one needs to do, really, is examine the legislation, as we at American Life League did in our latest ALL Report, “Obamacare: Abortion’s Trojan Horse.” The viewer can read about abortion in at least one of the bills by viewing actual statements from the bill that are exhibited in this video.
Or review the statements of ABC News’ chief medical editor, Dr. Timothy Johnson, who, among others, says, “If you look at the language, it gets complicated. It’s not crystal clear whether or not that could happen with a so-called ‘public option,’ and even with private plans that might be subsidized by the government, maybe abortion would be allowed.”
So who is the one deceiving the public? Even though B.E. does not believe that the president is “a liar,” she needs to examine the factual evidence, not for the purpose of making a pejorative judgment about anyone, but to inform herself so that she understands what is being said versus what is being promoted.
If, as B.E. suggests, we remain silent now and ignore the evils contained in the various "health care reform" bills, it would not be spiritually healthy for any of us, nor would it be politically feasible to go back and fix the problem later! Pro-lifers have heard that argument regarding other pieces of legislation. We have learned from painful experience that, in politics, usually nothing is improved in order to agree with God’s word. Usually, revisions result in more evil. The sad history of the Hyde Amendment, which allegedly bars the use of tax dollars to pay for abortion, is a testimony to such failure.
No, the time to fix the deadly aspects of "health care reform" proposals is now. The time to see that justice is done for one and all is now, not later.
Finally, on a personal note and as one Catholic to another, B.E., let me say that, as Catholics, we know how to reach out to those in danger of dying because they do not have adequate health insurance or because their health care is nonexistent. We know because we learned it from—and some of us have witnessed it in—the work of Mother Teresa and countless others whose names are not readily known, all of whose work has left a legacy of love. It is called charity! It is the willingness of one community of faithful people to reach out and give of itself for the good of others.
The federal government has never understood charity, and it is not a source of Christ-like care. It is a bloated bureaucracy badly in need of cost-cutting measures, and that is the most fearful of truths when honestly assessing what “health care reform” is actually all about. The American Health Care Association says seniors would face billions of dollars in Medicare cuts.
That does not sound like good news to me! It is a warning and should be uppermost in B.E.’s thoughts and prayers as she continues, as each of us should, to be concerned for the most vulnerable in our midst.
God save us from silly phrases and deadly agendas.
Thank God for your excellent insight into these matters, Judie. Keep up the fight for the most vulnerable. jim dress | August 24, 2009
Thank you, Judie.
As usual, your comments are right on. As a vulnerable little old lady, I do sincerely appreciate your efforts. This present government is not being understood by the very people who are most in danger.
I am an old pro-life rescuer, my son is mentally retarded, and my daughter has a physical disability. No husband and no father. We are all in danger.
God bless you in this fight to the death.
Susan Susan | August 24, 2009
Thanks for your helpful response to B.E. I am going to forward it to people who have been "arguing" with me about the contents of the "Obamacare" plan. Julie Grimstad | August 25, 2009
Thank you, Judie, for your informative response to B.E. Hope she revises her thinking to what a real Roman Catholic should believe.
God Bless You, Victor Mariani | August 25, 2009
Thank you, Judie, for this story. I can understand B.E.'s confusion on the health care reform. After all, President Obama himself said that it is "not true" and a "fabrication: to say that his health plan will "mean government funding of abortion." (NRLC - Which side is Fabricating?)
There is alot of truths and untruths circulating around the health care reform. I went into Planned Parenthood's website on Abortion Care Coverage and Health Care Reform: Getting the Facts straight and the myth they say that taxpayer money would be used to pay for abortions in the public plan. In consideration of who Planned Parenthood is, I would think there is a hidden agenda of why they are saying this and I would have to go to other sources I trust with pro-life values. I think that would have to be the rule of thumb for everyone: their actions speak louder than words. You can go to the National Right to Life website to see the amendments that have been struck down to explicitly exclude abortions in the health care reform. Also, you can go to the USCCB website Action Alert to see the amendments being struck down to protect life and to contact your Senators and Congressman/woman with floor votes which could occur in the House and the Senate after the August recess. You can check out LifeSiteNews.com to get a pro-life perspective and truths on the health care reform. Through all of this health care reform, I have learned that you will not get the whole truth from the liberal mass media. You need to double check and educate yourself with the media that have Christ-like values You need to check out where the apple is falling from and their agendas. Is it money? Is it evil? Anyone can say anything, but it does not mean it is necessarily true.
If the pro-abortionists would have had their way, this bill would have been passed in July expanding abortions and being funded by the tax payers like never before in America. God gave us a little more time to do our best and we must.
Patty Palmqusit
Patty Palmquist | August 26, 2009
Patty
Ultimately all these bills need to go down! They are not good for America and do not express charity, but rather cost cutting that will kill people, not to mention indoctrinate our children thanks to the huge funding for Planned Parenthood.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | August 26, 2009
Thank you, Judie. I agree and am working and praying for all these government take-over health care reform bills to be defeated. I see the dangers. Why out of 180 Bishops in America, are there so few sounding the alarm in these health care reform bills?
Thank God for the American Life League in shining the truth and sounding the alarm. May
God continue to bless all your works in the respect and protection of all human life from the womb to the tomb.
ABORTION-MINDED MOTHERS: THE FACTS Posted: Friday August 21, 2009 at 12:55 pm EST by Judie Brown
A recent airing of Raymond Arroyo’s The World Over presented an opportunity for me to discuss Catholic health care ethics with the president of the Catholic Health Association, Sister Carol Keehan, DC. I received a great deal of messages via e-mail, Facebook and the U.S. Postal Service after my appearance on that program.
I am grateful for every one of them. However, one in particular moved me to think seriously about what is really at stake in our struggle to keep the aborting of a child out of any type of health care reform legislation. It helped me realize what an expectant mother seeking to abort her baby really wants and really needs.
So, rather than tell you my opinion, which would not be based on actual hands-on experience, I prefer to share this letter, written to Sister Carol by Lorraine Curtin, who does know exactly what such a mother thinks, feels and needs:
Dear Sister Carol Keehan,
Thank you for taking a moment to read my e-mail.
I listened to your conversation last Friday evening with Raymond Arroyo and Judie Brown. There is one aspect of your argument regarding health care for pregnant women that I would like to address. It concerns an implied generalization that free prenatal care would greatly diminish abortions in our country.
I am a volunteer consultant at a crisis pregnancy center in Columbus, Ohio. Since 2001, I have talked with hundreds of abortion-minded women concerning their pregnancy and their options. It has been my experience that women do not choose to have an abortion because of lack of prenatal care. In our state, we have a generous, free health insurance program (called Healthy Start/Healthy Families) for women without insurance. The guidelines for eligibility are well above the Medicaid guidelines given by the federal government. In fact, any women in our state ineligible for state insurance can receive quality prenatal care for free (or at a substantially reduced rate) because there are other programs available to these women through grant money.
My experience has been that women choose abortion because they do not want to be pregnant. This might sound overly simplified, but let me explain. Many teens and adults are engaging in premarital sex. Most of them do not want children with that partner or at that moment in their life. Consequently, when they do get pregnant, they seek an abortion. Since abortion is legal and easy to acquire, it is a choice so often made. Many women choose to abort in the first trimester because they are not showing yet. Trust me, if all they needed were health care, we would have very few abortions in our state. (We have approximately 31,000 elective abortions each year.)
I can state at least 10 reasons that are given as to why they choose an abortion (notice that health care is not on the list):
1. Birth control failed – pill, patch, shot, condom
2. Wants to finish high school/college – baby messes up their future plans
3. No longer in a relationship with the father of the baby
4. Parents would be unsupportive – afraid of what they might think – doesn’t want
them to find out.
5. Has enough kids
6. Pregnant through an extramarital affair
7. Not ready to parent – no particular reason given
8. Does not know who the father is – casual sex (hooking up) – multiple partners
9. Pressure from someone else to abort (family, boyfriend, employer)
10. Sex is purely recreational – “I never thought I’d get pregnant!”
Women never tell us, “Gee, I wouldn’t have an abortion if I could get free health care.” They know they can get free health care. It’s not about health care – it’s about the devaluing of human life in our culture, and most of the responsibility lies in the fact that abortions have been legal since 1973 [emphasis added]. Please do not be duped into this lie about abortion and health care. The only way to stop it is to make it illegal and teach “abstinence-only” in our homes, our churches and our schools.
Now I must say that some of the poorest of the poor do not get abortions, because they cannot pay for them (a first-trimester abortion runs about $350 in our city). So, if health care passes that includes free abortions (a.k.a. family planning services), then even these women will succumb to the culture of death.
If you have any independent studies (not by Planned Parenthood) that corroborate your claim, please send them to me, so that I can read them.
If abortion were illegal, then the choice to abort would change to the choice of an adoption and occasionally to parenting. In our current climate, abortion is an “easy” option for now (or so they think!) because “no one will know that I was ever pregnant.”
If it were just as “simple” as giving them free health care, there would be no use for crisis pregnancy centers. I would happily give up my position here if it were all true, but I know better. I encourage you to visit a crisis center in your state and talk one-on-one with the consultants for more in-depth conversation.
There it is, from an expert. This woman has given us a window into the world of the expectant mother who does not wish to be the mother of a living child. I would hasten to add that most of these mothers do not consider themselves to be the mother of a preborn child, but prefer to think of themselves as a woman with a problem requiring a quick solution. I also believe that this counselor is correct to point out that if abortion is covered in any health care “reform” plan, abortion numbers will go through the roof. So why hasn’t this been made clear?
First and foremost, pro-life America is making the case, and we are not going to shut up. And it is my opinion that, after all these weeks of debate, perhaps the truth is sinking in. Perhaps Americans are finally beginning to think beyond the Obamacare marketing phrases, gobbledygook and false promises making their way through town-hall meetings and other such venues.
On this subject – the facts about abortion-minded mothers – it is my sincere hope that people across this nation will spread the words of this wise pro-life pregnancy counselor, and help their ministers, priests, bishops and others see that Obamacare is going to increase the killing of the preborn, not ameliorate the situation.
President Obama says abortion is “heart-wrenching,” and yet he advocates it. We say abortion is murder and it’s time for America to listen.
Also unmentioned by Sister Carol Keehan is the fact that many misguided OB/GYN's who have determined a poor prenatal diagnosis for the baby actually push parents towards abortion as the "merciful" option. I hate to say it, but in the hands of a public option, government sponsored health care system this could become the mandated option.
Thanks and God bless you!
Catherine Lemek Catherine Lemek | August 24, 2009
I've been counseling English and Spanish speaking women for six years, and I would add one more reason for seeking an abortion. I have run across this reason dozens of times. The woman is here illegally and has to send money back home, usually to support her child or children. She has had an affair and is now pregnant, not in the plan. In my state of California, even she would receive free care throughout labor and delivery. Very few of the women I've counseled have availed themselves of this opportunity. The ones that have, have not had to pay any of the cost of prenatal, labor and delivery health care. Maria Rugg | August 24, 2009
How about this?
Your bc failed, read the labels, they are not 100% effective, if youre ready for sex... be resposible
You can do anything with a baby that you can do without one, I know I have 2 little boys and I'm only 23
No longer with the father doesn't mean squat, you know how many mothers are not with the babys daddy?
If you're parents knew you were having sex, doing drugs, drinking etc, they'd probably be unsupportive of that, but you didn't care to begin with.
You should've thought about having to many kids before hand, or go get your tubes tied!
Quit cheating on your husband, besides, what goes around comes around, the baby wasnt forcing you to have the affair.
Grow up and take responsiblity for your actions, if you're ready for sex, be ready to accept the concequences. What if you caught HIV? Nobodys fault but your own.
Men and women a like need to be more responsible for the things they do!
elisabeth | August 26, 2009
"They know they can get free health care"? Where?? Aren't you obligated to tell the truth? Tell the poor mother who cannot afford food, whose children are going to bed hungry, who is one of the 42 million uninsured Americans, that there is free health care What hypocrisy! How dare you. I noticed you did not add sexual abuse, rape, incest or the health of the woman to your trite list. Do you really think American women are that shallow? Elizabeth | August 28, 2009
I am sorry to say I did not see that episode of the World Over, although I wish I had!
Thank you so much for this article. I am also a pregnancy Counselor and have been doing Pro-Life work for over 6 years. I would like to say that I have heard all the above reasons for choosing abortion. A HUGE part of why women choose abortion is because they are afraid and in the moment. Women are feeling so helpless when they become pregnant without planning to.
I would like to comment on "Elizabeth's " coment on getting their tubes tied. This is not the solution. We do not need to make sexual sin without consequence any easier! We need to teach women to respect themselves and to make wise and healthy choices- Most of all to make choices that will help get them to heaven with God at the end of their life. Love is the answer. We need to love women who find themselves in an unplanned pregnancy. Sara Moran | August 28, 2009
Elisabeth
BRAVO! Thank you.
Judie Judie Brown | August 29, 2009
Dear Elizabeth
First of all, welcome to Catholic charity at work. Those in need have a place to turn, the local Catholic parish, which can help those in need without the government dole. There is no effort to deceive anyone; the fact is that the foundation of charity is not a government check, it is one human being sacrificing in order to help another.
No hypocrisy, just true love in Christ.
Judie Brown Judie Brown | September 1, 2009
Sara
You are, of course, totally correct. I think Elizabeth is angry though I cannot discern the reasons why since her communcation is words typed on a screen. But I do know that people like her need our witness, in word and deed.
A SPOONFUL OF SUGAR ISN’T ENOUGH! Posted: Thursday August 20, 2009 at 12:56 pm EST by Judie Brown
Mary Poppins’ “A Spoonful of Sugar” was such a hit with my kids when they were little because it was fun to clean up toys while singing it. The line “A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down” makes a lot of sense when children are busy with an “I don’t wanna do this” task.
But when it comes to Obamacare, I’m afraid a 10-pound bag full of sugar isn’t really going to matter. As Launcelot said in Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, “Truth will out!” It always does. And in this case, despite the denials and personal attacks on upstanding Americans such as Sarah Palin, the truth is getting out, and then some.
Obamacare’s Trojan horse, known in some circles, as the “death panel” provision, is Obama’s Achilles’ heel. Even though those pesky “death panel” discussions have taken a turn, not all of us are convinced. Some Americans actually think that just because the Senate has announced that the panels are coming out of its version of Obamacare, we should all heave a sigh of relief and go on about our business. After all, folks, they would argue, don’t we all know how sincerely these men and women in the U.S. Congress care about the views of average Americans like you and me and how they are always looking out for us? Well …
For those of us who live in the real world, the news out of Washington that those panels are allegedly gone is nothing to get excited about. What the Senate took out is a reference to “advance care planning consultations.” The Senate has not removed references to the Independent Medicare Advisory Commission, nor has it finalized any piece of legislation. As we have learned over the years, what was there yesterday and appears to be gone today could come back in a different form tomorrow. It’s sort of like a chameleon; the lizard changes color to adapt to its surroundings.
But there’s a little more to this story than a Sarah Palin versus Barack Obama debate. As Palin wrote on her Facebook page,
The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Sowell, to whom Palin refers, is a wise man who opined,
An old advertising slogan said, "Progress is our most important product." With politicians, confusion is their most important product. They confuse bringing down the price of medical care with bringing down the cost. And they confuse medical care with health care.
Nothing is easier than for governments to impose price controls. They have been doing this, off and on, for thousands of years – repeatedly resulting in (1) shortages, (2) quality deterioration and (3) black markets. Why would anyone want any of those things when it comes to medical care?
And this is precisely where Palin is going with her reference to “death panels” and the vulnerable. She had and still has every reason to bring this subject to the public’s attention. For those who doubt the veracity of it, just feast your doubting eyeballs on this little tidbit, which is reported on the Compassion & Choices (formerly the Hemlock Society) web site:
Compassion & Choices has worked tirelessly with supportive members of congress [sic] to include in proposed reform legislation a provision requiring Medicare to cover patient consultation with their doctors about end-of-life choice. (emphasis added)
It is clear that Compassion & Choices would approve “death panels,” as well as physician-assisted suicide or any other measure that would cut costs. Why not? Its business is helping people die.
So, was it a coincidence that the day after the Family Research Council pointed this out in a Washington Update segment appropriately entitled “Political Suicide?” the Senate Finance Committee removed the “death panel” provision? Or was it a ploy? While we are grateful to Tony Perkins and his wonderful staff at FRC, we are not convinced that the Senate, or for that matter, the White House, is sincere in any promise they make to the American public on the delicate subject of health care – whether the question at hand is abortion, euthanasia or anything else having to do with respect for the dignity of the human person.
But don’t take my word for it. Just yesterday, the Washington Times published an article written by attorney Robert W. Painter, who handles medical malpractice matters and testified before the Texas legislature on that state’s Advance Directives Act of 1999. In “’Death Panels’ exist already,” Painter writes about what has occurred as a direct result of the Act becoming law. And he warns that what has happened in Texas is a harbinger of what could happen nationwide if the Obama proposal moves forward. The results in Texas have been devastating for families.
The end-of-life provisions of the Obama health care plan would upset the balance of power in health care decision-making in favor of doctors and hospitals and against individuals and families. The federal legislation provides an economic incentive for doctors and hospital administrators to use Medicare funds to start hastening certain patient deaths a bit sooner under existing state laws. In Texas, that balance already is tipped in favor of the health care providers, and the proposed federal legislation would only make matters worse by placing more Medicare dollars on that side of the scale.
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, is rightly concerned that the end-of-life provisions in the proposed federal law could be "misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly." Federal lawmakers interested in protecting individual and patient rights need to study carefully the end-of-life provisions with the understanding that the law will be implemented in health care settings governed under 50 different sets of state law.
Admittedly, the warning of "death panels" is a shocking claim. But when I inform people of the effect of the Texas law and how it has trampled on individual rights, they are understandably shocked. If the Texas Advance Directives Act has shown us anything, it is that governments should leave end-of-life decisions to patients and their families.
It occurs to me that President Obama’s rush to impose his prescription for health care reform on the nation is riddled through and through with problems. But at the core of it all, the real question is why should the federal government be regulating medical practices as a way of cutting costs?
If the entire purpose of health care reform is to save money, we’d better be more than vigilant. A spoon full of sugar is one thing, but Conium maculatum (poison hemlock) is quite another.
Pro-Life Story: This is MY pro-life story Posted By Kendra LaRue on Apr, 9 2007 I've been raised in a Christian home all my life, and I've always been against abortion 100%. When i was 18, I found out I was pregnant by a guy, Ben, I'd dated for about 4 ... Read
