Catholic Health Association Endorses Pro-Abortion Senate Health Care Bill

[juliee]

Washington, DC – The Catholic Health Association is coming under fire today for releasing a statement not only endorsing the pro-abortion Senate health care bill but issuing a misleading statement making it appear the bill does not fund abortions. The head of a national pro-life organization disabused the CHA in response.

lifenews.com/nat6115.html

 

[Pamm]

This bill is not a “pro” abortion bill. The continued communication of misinformation is, in part, what prevents viable legislation from passing. Millions of people in this country are without healthcare services, including young women who are pregnant, who can not access prenatal care. This bill is no more “pro abortion” and it also does NOT authorize so-called “death panels.”

 

[the_phoenix]

This bill is not a “pro” abortion bill.

Yes it is.

 

[catharina]

Juliee and Phoenix - I thank you for your clear statements in support of the teachings of the Church. As a new member of CA, perhaps PAMM is unaware of the clear position of the USCCB (Catholic bishops) standing fully opposed to the fedreal healthcare goals as currently written. I’ve not been online to CA for months (ill health) but returned today to insure that the comments of (Sister) Carol Keehan have been exposed and rejected by those on the CA site. Between today and yesterday, I’ve sent emails to the national and international superiors of Carol Keehan, firmly objecting to the horror of her statement. Because her background is that of a Daughter of Charity, it is imperative to note that her stand supporting the federal goals is antithetical to the life and vows of a Daughter of Charity.

Today is the feast of St. Louise de Marillac. St. Louise is a French co-founder of the Daughters along with St. Vincent de Paul (and in the USA, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton). The Community is celebrating its 350th year of service this year. Carol Keehan’s stance is a outrage. May God help her.

 

[Pamm]

Others have provided documentation that the National Pro Life Organizations and others are calling this a Pro Abortion bill. I can also provide a link where it is indicated that the intent of the bill is not to promote abortion.

motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/senate-health-care-bill-abortion-typo

 

[catharina]

Others have provided documentation that the National Pro Life Organizations and others are calling this a Pro Abortion bill. I can also provide a link where it is indicated that the intent of the bill is not to promote abortion.

motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/senate-health-care-bill-abortion-typo

Many national pro-life organizations are non-Catholic groups.
My concern is what the Church is saying about the bill.
The bishops speak to us. They say the bill is ‘dangerous’, as is.

Comparing the words of the US Council of Bishops to the views of mother jones?
I wouldn’t be doing that. Some opinions are of unequal gravity.

 

[maryj]

This bill is not a “pro” abortion bill. The continued communication of misinformation is, in part, what prevents viable legislation from passing. Millions of people in this country are without healthcare services, including young women who are pregnant, who can not access prenatal care. This bill is no more “pro abortion” and it also does NOT authorize so-called “death panels.”

would you be willing to site information on “young women who are pregnant, who can not access prenatal care”??

 

[Pamm]

The State of Nebraska, with a pro-life governor (and he supports this plan) is moving to deny state funded pre-natal care for all pregnant women who also happen to be illegal immigrants. These young babies would be Amercian citizens and yet they will be denied care because their parents are illegals. While the Bishops in Nebraska have opposed this plan, the public, which is heavily Catholic, and the governor support it. I can’t understand this – it will encourage some of these women to have abortions because they can’t afford to care for their children.

 

[Pamm]

Here is a link about the loss of prenatal care in Nebraska. The deadline passed and these woman are currently not receiving Medicaid funded care.

journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/article_318a779a-2275-11df-be8f-001cc4c002e0.html

 

[catharina]

Here is a link about the loss of prenatal care in Nebraska. The deadline passed and these woman are currently not receiving Medicaid funded care.

journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/article_318a779a-2275-11df-be8f-001cc4c002e0.html

I strongly suggest you review the materials in this link:

nebcathcon.org/ncl.htm

The Catholic Conference of Nebraska offers pro-life services to women in need. Exclusion of Medicaid funding is tragic and severe (and morally reprhensible) but in no way does it OUTLAW services to pregnant women.

Shame on the voters of Nebraska.

 

[Rence]

I don’t understand this propaganda calling the Health Care Reform Bill the “Pro-Abortion Bill”. It’s ridiculous. I really hope the bill gets passed. There are really sick people out there that would benefit from a bit of healthcare. Why should a child with cancer be deprived of much needed cancer treatments that would save his life over this useless banter, which is compliance with the law?

If the bill doesn’t pass it’s not going to be because of abortion-funding, because the plan doesn’t contribute federal funds to abortion.

The federal law states that no abortion will be paid for with federal funds, unless in the case of rape, incest and threat to the woman’s life, which most people find reasonable and is Federal law. What is allowed, is the option to buy a private supplement, and I don’t see why people have objections to that. Some private insurances do cover abortion and oral contraceptives as part of their plan. Private insurance companies are not going to change their plan to pacify Catholics, and many people choose their insurance carriers FOR this benefit.

Where does it say in the Heathcare Reform Bill that abortion is paid for with taxpayer money (except for rape, incest and life of the woman - which is ALREADY being done per Federal law)? Maybe I missed it. Can someone show me? I’d really appreciate it, because I looked and I didn’t see it. Here’s what I found in the bill:

9 SEC. 265. LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.
10 (a) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized or appro11
priated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)
12 may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part
13 of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of
14 abortion, except in the case where a woman suffers from
15 a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that
16 would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in dan17
ger of death unless an abortion is performed, including
18 a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising
19 from the pregnancy itself, or unless the pregnancy is the
20 result of an act of rape or incest.
21 (b) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE SUPPLE22
MENTAL COVERAGE OR PLAN.—Nothing in this section
23 shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity (in24
cluding an individual or a State or local government) from
25 purchasing separate supplemental coverage for abortions
1 for which funding is prohibited under this section, or a
2 plan that includes such abortions, so long as—
3 (1) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely
4 using only funds not authorized or appropriated by
5 this Act; and
6 (2) such coverage or plan is not purchased
7 using—
8 (A) individual premium payments required
9 for a Exchange-participating health benefits
10 plan towards which an affordability credit is ap11
plied; or
12 (B) other nonfederal funds required to re13
ceive a federal payment, including a State’s or
14 locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching
15 funds.
16 (c) OPTION TO OFFER SEPARATE SUPPLEMENTAL
17 COVERAGE OR PLAN.—Notwithstanding section 303(b),
18 nothing in this section shall restrict any nonfederal QHBP
19 offering entity from offering separate supplemental cov20
erage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under
21 this section, or a plan that includes such abortions, so long
22 as—
23 (1) premiums for such separate supplemental
24 coverage or plan are paid for entirely with funds not
25 authorized or appropriated by this Act;
VerDate Nov 24 2008 21:32 Nov 16, 2009 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00161 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3962.PCS H3962 hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
162
HR 3962 PCS
1 (2) administrative costs and all services offered
2 through such supplemental coverage or plan are paid
3 for using only premiums collected for such coverage
4 or plan; and
5 (3) any nonfederal QHBP offering entity that
6 offers an Exchange-participating health benefits
7 plan that includes coverage for abortions for which
8 funding is prohibited under this section also offers
9 an Exchange-participating health benefits plan that
10 is identical in every respect except that it does not
11 cover abortions for which funding is prohibited
12 under this section.

 

[Rence]

Yes it is.

How is it pro-abortion? It’s in compliance with federal law regarding abortion.

 

[Rence]

This bill is not a “pro” abortion bill. The continued communication of misinformation is, in part, what prevents viable legislation from passing. Millions of people in this country are without healthcare services, including young women who are pregnant, who can not access prenatal care. This bill is no more “pro abortion” and it also does NOT authorize so-called “death panels.”

Due to lack of funding, the county next to me has eliminated prenatal care at the health clinic for illegal aliens…which has already increased emergency premature deliveries in that county. I wonder how they think this is more economical? They deny prenatal care but spend hundreds of thousands in the NICU on these babies It doesn’t make sense to me at all…

 

[catharina]

I don’t understand this propaganda calling the Health Care Reform Bill the “Pro-Abortion Bill”. It’s ridiculous. I really hope the bill gets passed. There are really sick people out there that would benefit from a bit of healthcare. Why should a child with cancer be deprived of much needed cancer treatments that would save his life over this useless banter, which is compliance with the law?

If the bill doesn’t pass it’s not going to be because of abortion-funding, because the plan doesn’t contribute federal funds to abortion.

The federal law states that no abortion will be paid for with federal funds, unless in the case of rape, incest and threat to the woman’s life, which most people find reasonable and is Federal law. What is allowed, is the option to buy a private supplement, and I don’t see why people have objections to that. Some private insurances do cover abortion and oral contraceptives as part of their plan. Private insurance companies are not going to change their plan to pacify Catholics, and many people choose their insurance carriers FOR this benefit.

Where does it say in the Heathcare Reform Bill that abortion is paid for with taxpayer money (except for rape, incest and life of the woman - which is ALREADY being done per Federal law)? Maybe I missed it. Can someone show me? I’d really appreciate it, because I looked and I didn’t see it. Here’s what I found in the bill:…

As a Catholic you should look at what the Bishops are (repeatedly) saying.
They are in disagreement with your view.
Church teaching can NOT be dismissed as propaganda.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican_newspaper_u.s._bishops_speak_for_catholic_church_on_health_care_reform/

"Vatican paper: U.S. bishops speak for Catholic Church on health care reform

Vatican City, Mar 16, 2010 / 02:40 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In a story written by reporter Marco Bellizzi, the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano (LOR) points out that the American Catholic Bishops speak for the Catholic Church when they criticize the current health care bill.

“No support in the dark for health reform,” the LOR subtitles its story, which explains that “the health care bill approved by the US Senate is not acceptable.” “It cannot be supported and the moral objections raised by the project cannot be postponed for a later moment. … ”

 

[Rence]

As a Catholic you should look at what the Bishops are (repeatedly) saying.
They are in disagreement with your view.
Church teaching can NOT be dismissed as propaganda.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican_newspaper_u.s._bishops_speak_for_catholic_church_on_health_care_reform/

"Vatican paper: U.S. bishops speak for Catholic Church on health care reform

Vatican City, Mar 16, 2010 / 02:40 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In a story written by reporter Marco Bellizzi, the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano (LOR) points out that the American Catholic Bishops speak for the Catholic Church when they criticize the current health care bill.

“No support in the dark for health reform,” the LOR subtitles its story, which explains that “the health care bill approved by the US Senate is not acceptable.” “It cannot be supported and the moral objections raised by the project cannot be postponed for a later moment. … ”

I have looked at what the Bishops said. And they have the right to their view as well as I do. Unless there is clear evidence that the bill supports abortion, which it doesn’t, it IS propaganda. And I’ll use my own brain and conscience to drive my decisions. Don’t bother arguing with me: it’s not going to change anything. But thanks for your opinion you deserve the right to have and defend your opinion

My reply to this post was to post information straight from the bill regarding the fact that federal funds are NOT supporting abortion and it certainly isn’t promoting abortion. I’m not going to go back and forth about it. If you’re going to say my post is incorrect, please cite from the heathcare bill exactly where. Because frankly, I’d like to know myself if there is more than what I quoted from the health care bill itself.

 

[catharina]

I have looked at what the Bishops said. And they have the right to their view as well as I do. Unless there is clear evidence that the bill supports abortion, which it doesn’t, it IS propaganda. And I’ll use my own brain and conscience to drive my decisions. Don’t bother arguing with me: it’s not going to change anything. But thanks for your opinion you deserve the right to have and defend your opinion

My reply to this post was to post information straight from the bill regarding the fact that federal funds are NOT supporting abortion and it certainly isn’t promoting abortion. I’m not going to go back and forth about it. If you’re going to say my post is incorrect, please cite from the heathcare bill exactly where. Because frankly, I’d like to know myself if there is more than what I quoted from the health care bill itself.

I am saying that as CATHOLICS, we are under the teaching authority of the Church.
If you disagree with that you are in error.

Plus, you do NOT have such teaching authority.
I do not have to PROVE anything to you.
Nor do the Bishops.

 

[Rence]

I am saying that as CATHOLICS, we are under the teaching authority of the Church.
If you disagree with that you are in error.

How can I be in error? it’s right there in black and white

**However, if one finds something in the bill that conflicts with the passage I found, it would be really nice if they would tell me. **

Plus, you do NOT have such teaching authority.
I do not have to PROVE anything to you.
Nor do the Bishops.

**I NEVER said I have teaching authority. Where did I say I have teaching authority. Stop making up things about me that aren’t true, it is very unchristian and “thou shalt not bear false witness”. So why not practice a little of what you preach? I certainly never said you had to prove anything to me. What I said was, if there is more to the passage I quoted SOMEBODY point it out to me. Why are you so hostile? The passage speaks for iteself, I didn’t create it, I just cited it. I didn’t make the bill, I just quoted a passage from it. **

 

[catharina]

Rence:
I feel very annoyed, very angry when Catholics argue that Church authorities must prove their positions to such Catholics. We have leaders in authority over us to guide us in such matters. In this case, the authority is our Bishops. You can say and you can “choose” not to accept the authority of the Bishops regarding such matters, but if you do so, you are in error. We are to place our conscience to the teaching authorities over us. In this instance the authority is our Bishops.

You decide differently, that’s your choice.
Not an OK choice - but your choice.

 

[Rence]

I feel very annoyed, very angry when Catholics argue that Church authorities must prove their positions to such Catholics. We have leaders in authority over us to guide us in such matters. In this case, the authority is our Bishops. You can say and you can “choose” not to accept the authority of the Bishops regarding such matters, but if you do so, you are in error.

That was my point from the beginning: I can say and I can “choose”. Just like you can. Why it annoys you is beyond me, but that’s okay. If one wants to spend all their energy on being annoyed, then one can be annoyed all day

 

[catharina]

That was my point from the beginning: I can say and I can “choose”. Just like you can. Why it annoys you is beyond me, but that’s okay. If one wants to spend all their energy on being annoyed, then one can be annoyed all day

I am always (or nearly always) annoyed, angered, saddened when one calls oneself “Roman Catholic” while implying that one is ready to follow other than the teaching of the Church. There are public figures who call themselves Catholic while they fully reject the teachings of the Church, especially regarding issues of life. I’m sure you can think of a few. Their position, such positions, are deadly to the Body of Christ, the Church.

Our choices are to be informed by grace and teachings.