For the life of me I can’t remember why the Vatican would have an Apostolic Visitation regarding American religious.
Dear Members of Congress:We write to urge you to cast a life-affirming “yes” vote when the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590) comes to the floor of the House for a vote as early as this week. We join the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA), which represents 1,200 Catholic sponsors, systems, facilities and related organizations, in saying: the time is now for health reform AND the Senate bill is a good way forward.As the heads of major Catholic women’s religious order in the United States, we represent 59,000 Catholic Sisters in the United States who respond to needs of people in many ways. Among our other ministries we are responsible for running many of our nation’s hospital systems as well as free clinics throughout the country.
Oh wait, now I remember.
I would like to be able to ask LCWR and CHA if the bill does pass and taxpayer money funds abortion – what they will do in response? Sack cloth and ashes doesn’t look good with polyester suits and sensible shoes. I guess we would get the same apology pro-Obama Catholics give for this radically pro-abortion President – no apology at all.
Of course every country except the small majority Catholic country of Malta that had socialized medicine went on to subsidize abortion. But that couldn’t happen here – well besides it already happening in the District of Washington D.C. and of course the money that goes to Planned Parenthood (money is fungible people).
8 comments
What is the URL address for the apparent LCWR letter quoted above? I tried to find it at the http://www.lcwr.org web site and was unable to.
The letter was written by “Network” and can be found at:
http://www.networklobby.org/press/3-17-10HealthcareSistersLetter.htm
The reference that Jeff is making to the LWCR probably comes from Sister Marlene Weisenbeck’s (virtual) signature at the top of the list of signers. Sister Weisenbeck is the president of the LWCR.
Peace,
Fr. Maurer
re: “I would like to be able to ask LCWR and CHA if the bill does pass and taxpayer money funds abortion – what they will do in response?”
I’m actually wondering what the USCCB will say when this bill passes and no federally funded abortions occur. The passage of the bill is far from a done deal, but if it get’s passed I have the feeling there are going to be a lot of people feeling silly about their present histrionics.
Devon, it’s in the bill on page 198. So we’re not being histrionic by saying that something that is there, is there.
Sherry:
Could you provide the place where you found this bill.
Keith
I went to http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf
But I was recalling the page from memory. It is on page 119. You can always start on page one and type in Abortion and it will take you to the start of the section on when Abortion is not covered (118), and then the sections where it is.
Anyone who believes that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the party that has made abortion it’s only non-negotiable standard won’t have abortion covered in this bill is either naive or disengenouous. I’ll be charitable and say they’re just naive.
And even if it isn’t covered in the bill; Planned Parenthood and NARAL will have a cadre of lawyers waiting in the wings to sue for its inclusion. The history of the Democratic love of abortion is all the proof I need of this.
Sherry,
As it clearly states on page 119 of the bill, the only abortions for which federal funds could be used would be those already permitted under federal law (i.e. those permitted under the Hyde amendment for rape, incest, or the life of the mother). Clearly Catholic teaching doesn’t sanction even most of those kinds of abortion, but that has not stopped the Catholic bishops or the pro-life movement from advocating the renewal of the Hyde amendment each time it comes up. So the bill keeps the standard that has up to this point been acceptable to Catholics as the best law that is politically feasible.
I think an honest and informed reading (and I understand the language is very technical, so it isn’t easy) of the applicable sections of the bill will reveal that most of the bishops concerns have been addressed, even if they don’t see it. (e.g. conscience protection on page 125.) The one major exception is of course coverage for undocumented immigrants which has been prohibited. But I think that just isn;t politically possible right now. We will have to work on changing the culture and perhaps reforming immigration, then try to come back and extend coverage.