Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Catholic Bishops Weigh In on Health-Care Reform
By Jacqueline L. Salmon
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which has been relatively silent publicly on health-care reform for almost a month, weighed in yesterday with a detailed letter laying out its position on the health-reform bill passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The letter, written by Cardinal Justin Rigali, chairman of the USCCB's Committee on Pro-Life Activities, dissects the bill--and doesn't like some of what it sees. While emphasizing that the bishops view health care "as a basic right belonging to all human beings," it finds some serious problems in the Commerce legislation. It's clear that the bishops are lining up with evangelical Christian opponents to the legislation by contending that the bill could make abortion a mandated benefit.
On two areas, writes Rigali, the bill is "seriously deficient." First, it delegates to the secretary of Health and Human Services the "power to make unlimited abortion a mandated benefit in the 'public insurance plan,'" Rigali contends.
Second, some federal funds would not be covered by the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding of most abortions, Rigali said. Americans who purchase the "public option" "will be forced by the federal government to pay directly and specifically for abortion coverage," Rigali said in his letter.
But a spokesman for California Democrat Lois Capps--whose amendment allowing the public plan to cover abortion but without using federal fund was OK'd by the committee--denied that. No federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the woman, she said, and no pro-life doctor or hospital or even insurance plan could be required to participate in abortion services.
"No one--not the secretary, not the benefits committee, and not the commissioner--can make abortion a part of the minimum benefits package," the spokesperson said in an e-mail. "The secretary may choose to allow the public plan to cover abortions not allowed by Hyde Amendment, but if he/she does so, they also must be paid for with private funds."
Back to the USCCB. Rigali's letter said it supports the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which prohibited insurers from being required to cover abortion, unless the woman's life is at risk or the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. The amendment lost in committee, but aides to Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joseph Pitts (R-Pa.), said they will push for a separate vote on abortion funding when the health care bill comes before the full House this fall.
By
Jacqueline L. Salmon
|
August 12, 2009; 5:00 PM ET
| Category:
God in Government
Save & Share:
Previous: Faith and Politics in Church: New Study Suggests Size Matters |
Next: Poll Finds More Americans Now ID as Pro-Life
Posted by: arosscpa | August 18, 2009 11:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why is it that thoes institutions that file TAX EXAMPT when they openly violate the TAX EXAMPT RULES on political matters? When fileing tax exampt as a institution, freedom of speech is limited on political matters as the TAX EXAMPT RULES state. If the intitution whats total freedom of speech, they can but cannot file TAX EXAMPT. With the large numbers of violations in the past nine years, you think that the people whould require congress simple to end TAX EXAMPT bearing in mind that a lot of assets of thoes that file TAX EXAMPT have nothing to do with their institution. P.S. They should also take into account that all nations have borders with their own laws. WE are a country with a goverment of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Posted by: usapdx | August 14, 2009 11:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Rich,
My group coverage premium covers procedures that I would never consider having, and pharmaceuticals that I would never consider taking. I still have to pay the full premium, and my premiums help pay for those procedures and pharmaceuticals for others. That's the way insurance works. Your money pays for other people's prodcedures and pharmaceuticals, even if you personally think they're icky.
Posted by: lepidopteryx | August 13, 2009 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Rep. Lois Capps' office says: "The secretary may choose to allow the public plan to cover abortions not allowed by Hyde Amendment, but if he/she does so, they also must be paid for with private funds." This is, at best, disingenuous. We all know the abortion stance of the current HHS Secretary; we can reasonably predict that broad abortion coverage will be mandated. And the important word here is "must": Any American who signs on to the public (federal government-run) plan MUST pay for these abortions through his or her premium. If the government is making you pay for other people's abortions as a condition for getting into your government's health plan, even if you find abortion morally abhorrent, can you really make the moral problem go away by waving your hands and calling it a premium rather than a tax??
Posted by: RichardDoerflinger | August 13, 2009 12:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
USAPDX:
You are misinformed. I am a cpa that has practiced nonprofit taxation for most of my career. Nonprofits are barred from using any funds or resources to support a candidate or party in an "election," However, they may use "some" but nor not the majority of their funds to influence action on particular legislation and public issues. The safe harbor for what a 501(c)(3) may spend on issue-based lobbying is 30% of revenue based on a 5-year moving average.