Fr. Barron comments on Abortion and Health Care

Jill Stanek: The 1 man who can stop publicly funded D.C. abortions

Jill Stanek has a super article posted at WND today. Here is one of my favorite quotes from that story:

"Obama appears to be thwarting his own intentions by increasing access to abortion in an obviously abortion-vulnerable population, like giving an alcoholic a drink or taking a gambling addict to the casino."

Read the entire story here.

Pro-life need-to-knows on health care in Senate

For 6 weeks, and behind closed doors, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Democrats have been crafting their own version of a socialized health-care bill.

With the House's passage of its bill, Reid is ready to pull the trigger, now only awaiting a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office on two new tax increases his side has proposed to help contain their behemoth.

The CBO report could come at any moment, perhaps before this column is published.

After getting the CBO report, Reid will file cloture (i.e., closure on debate) on a motion to proceed on a "shell," or empty health-care bill.

Right. There will still be no language to see. Reid will introduce a shell bill simply to get the parliamentary wheels in motion.

According to Senate rules, the cloture vote Reid wants can come no sooner than 30 hours after he has introduced his shell bill, as early as Friday. Sixty votes will be required.

This is the first and very important choke point to stop the Senate's health-care bill from proceeding....

Continue reading Jill's column today, "Pro-life need-to-knows on health care in Senate," at WorldNetDaily.com.

OBAMA BETRAYS THE BISHOPS

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on President Obama’s position on abortion restrictions in the health care bill:

On September 30, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter to the U.S. Senate saying, “So far, the health reform bills considered in committee, including the new Senate Finance Committee bill, have not met President Obama’s challenge of barring use of federal dollars for abortion.”

We now know that President Obama—who is lobbying to excise the abortion restrictions that the bishops wanted—has betrayed the bishops. Here is how New York Times reporter Robert Pear put it today: “President Obama suggested Monday that he was not comfortable with abortion restrictions inserted into the House version of major health care legislation, and he prodded Congress to revise them.” Although Obama spoke out of both sides of his mouth in his ABC News interview, Pear’s statement is an accurate reflection of the president’s position.

The manly thing for the president to do would be to state the obvious: his love for abortion rights brooks (tolerates) no compromise. But he won’t do so, choosing instead to play the same old shell game he’s been playing all along. And he is not alone. For months, we have been told that the bill does not cover funds for abortion, yet if that were true, there would have been no need for the Stupak amendment, and no resistance to it.

This has been a great moment for the bishops, and for Catholics generally, but the fight is not over. It’s important that those on both sides know exactly who the players are on each team.

Jill Stanek: What health-care 'status quo' means to pro-aborts

The numbers don't jibe.

Time magazine reported July 8:

Nearly 90% of insurers cover abortion procedures, according to a 2002 survey by the Guttmacher Institute....

While U.S. News & World Report reported July 23:

[A] Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that 46% of insured workers had coverage for abortions.

But Dept. of Health & Human Services secretary nominee Kathleen Sebelius testified before the Senate Finance Committee on April 9:

Most private plans do not cover abortion services except in limited instances....

And the New York Times reported Nov. 8:

A 2003 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that 13% of abortions were billed directly to insurance companies.

What gives?

It is important to get to the bottom of those discrepant statistics, because pro-aborts are hinging their opposition to the Stupak/Pitts pro-life amendment in the House healthcare bill on one of them - which is false....

Continue reading her column at WorldNetDaily.com.

Video: The Truth About the Senate Bill

Churches Ask Senate for Abortion Funds

What can I say? It speaks for itself...

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A coalition of mainline Protestant churches have authored a letter to members of Congress asking them to make certain the health care bills they are considering contain taxpayer funding for abortions. The letter comes from a group of churches that have long advocated the pro-abortion position.

Under the umbrella of the Religious Institute, the church denominations and more than 1,100 pastors and church staff from the denominations endorsed the letter.

The letter calls abortion a morally justifiable decision and opposed any amendments to the House and Senate bills, which current contain massive abortion funding, to strike that taxpayer-financing.

Already, federal policy unfairly prevents low-income women and federal employees from receiving subsidized [abortions]," Rev. Debra W. Haffner, executive director of the Religious Institute complained.

The letter added that she doesn't want more abortion funding bans in place and complained that additional "restrictions" on abortion funding constitute a "serious moral injustice."

The article goes on, and at the end, names signers. Read the rest here:

Baptist, Brethren, Lutheran, Methodist Churches Ask Senate for Abortion Funds

Shared via AddThis

Britain's Government Policy of Silent Euthanasia

While many are trying to reassure us that there is no danger to the elderly, disabled, and chronically ill, the wording in areas of the health care bills presented, as well as the blatant rejection of specific wording that totally rules out funding abortion, etc in the recent past has many convinced that tax payer money will be used.

The same applies to those concerned about the conscience protection that is either missing or very ambiguous, for those of us who cannot participate in abortion, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, 'terminal sedation' or starving/dehydrating a person to death. The public option, putting our health care in the hands of the government, is also worrisome for many reasons, including what is happening in other nations:


Britain Already Has a "Government Policy of Silent Euthanasia": Anti-Euthanasia Activists



Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Britain Won't Prosecute Assisted Suicide: Chief Prosecutor


Britain's Pathway to Euthanasia - NHS Protocols for Dehydrating Disabled Patients to Death


British Doctors Practising "Slow" Euthanasia through Deep Sedation: BBC Report.

Stop Hyding! Abortion and Health Care Reform

Without authentic language to exclude abortion coverage from health care reform, the federal government will be promoting abortion on-demand.

Don't let the pro-abortion politicians get away with claiming the Hyde Amendment prevents this. It's time they Stop Hyding!



Susan B. Anthony List: Hyde Amendment:  Federal taxpayer dollars cannot be used to subsidize abortion on-demand

Action Alert: Senate Abortion Vote Tuesday - Call Key Senators

Members of the U.S. Senate Financial Services Committee will be voting NEXT TUESDAY on amendments to keep abortion coverage out of Sen. Max Baucus's (D-Mont.) health care bill. Sen. Baucus's health care bill explicitly includes abortion and would subsidize health plans that cover all elective abortions. Such subsidies for abortion goes well beyond the status quo of preventing federal funds either from paying for abortion or subsidizing plans that covers abortion as is prevented under current laws governing Medicaid, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, and the State Children's Health Insurance Plan.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has introduced several amendments that would prevent government funding for abortion and would protect current conscience laws for health workers. Please call these key Senators today and urge them to support Sen. Hatch's amendments to keep government funded abortions out of the Baucus bill:

• Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.): 202-224-5521
• Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.): 202-224-2441
• Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.): 202-224-2043
• Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.): 202-224-4843
• Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.): 202-224-5274
• Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine): 202-224-5344

Niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wants abortion taken out of health care reform bill

DENVILLE, NJ (September 20, 2009) - On September 18, 2009, Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke on behalf of the pro-life movement at Saint Cecilia's Church, located in Rockaway, NJ. Congressman Chris Smith (R-4th District) of New Jersey, joined Dr. Alveda King in championing the cause for life at the Catholic church with a presentation that included video of the civil rights era and made a comparison to the civil rights of the unborn.

Dr. Alveda King is advocating to prevent abortion from being included in health care reform on a federal level. Dr. Alveda King is also a Pastoral Associate of Priests for Life and Coordinator of the African-American Outreach.

Dr. Alveda King said, “We are living in turbulent times, but in the midst of these times, there is always hope and promise.” Dr. King is encouraged in helping to make a difference with her cause in support of civil rights for the unborn. She believes in working to achieve bipartisan support on the issue.


Prayer to End Abortion

Lord God, I thank you today for the gift of my life,

And for the lives of all my brothers and sisters.

I know there is nothing that destroys more life than abortion,

Yet I rejoice that you have conquered death by the Resurrection of Your Son.

I am ready to do my part in ending abortion.

Today I commit myself

Never to be silent,

Never to be passive,

Never to be forgetful of the unborn.

I commit myself to be active in the pro-life movement,

And never to stop defending life

Until all my brothers and sisters are protected,

And our nation once again becomes

A nation with liberty and justice

Not just for some, but for all,

Through Christ our Lord.

Amen!

Prayer by Father Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life

Obama's denials of abortion coverage 'laughable'

A leading pro-life activist in Washington says President Obama is not telling the whole truth when he promises taxpayers they will not be forced to fund abortions under his healthcare plan.

On Sunday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said on ABC's This Week program that President Obama will go beyond language in the House healthcare bill to make sure no public money goes to pay for abortions under healthcare reform.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, says Americans should be skeptical of Sebelius' claim, especially given the President's 2007 promise to Planned Parenthood that his healthcare plan would provide "reproductive care."

"It's almost gotten to the point of laughable if the consequences weren't so dire -- the president repeating over and over that there is no abortion coverage in healthcare reform currently.  I mean, it's simply a lie. It is simply not true," she contends. "I simply don't believe that he is that ignorant of what the plans are out there. I think what he knows is that Americans have rejected the idea. Our poll showed last week that it rejects the idea."

In order for President Obama to be considered the next convert to the pro-life cause, Dannenfelser says he needs to push for an amendment specifically excluding abortion coverage from the healthcare plans, an amendment that has been narrowly defeated in the House more than once already.

~ Via OneNewsNow.Com 

Opposing Obamacare Not a Tough Choice for Catholics

by Cathy Ruse

The New York Times reports that President Obama's health plans have caused a "struggle" within the Catholic Church over "how heavily to weigh opposition to abortion against  oncerns about social justice."

There are two problems here.  First is the suggestion that there is a collision of competing priorities at play, the social justice imperative of achieving health care for the poor and the pro-life imperative of battling abortion, with which Notre Dame law professor Cathleen Kaveny agrees.  She tells the Times, "It is the great tension in Catholic thought right now."

Surely there are bureaucratic squabbles between parish or diocesan offices, but this idea that there is some dichotomy in "Catholic thought" is utter fiction.  Social justice is concerned with the dignity of the human person, and there is no greater indignity than the taking of innocent human life in the womb; it champions the rights of the poor, and there is no one poorer than the child marked for abortion.

In fact, not only does the Church teach that abortion is a social justice concern, successive popes have called it the preeminent social justice issue of our time, which highlights the second problem in the New York Times report.  The competing imperatives are not of equal weight.  Teaching documents at all levels of the Church demonstrate that concern for the right to life takes pride of place because it is the foundation for all other rights.  Pope John Paul II wrote in Christifidelis Laici that, "the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights -- for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination."

The Catholic Church doesn't see abortion as an issue that can be given more weight in some circumstances and less in others; it is always and everywhere an attack on innocent human life and gravely immoral. The Church will never embrace "a little abortion" in exchange for achieving another desired goal.

The Catholic bishops have worked for decades to achieve access to quality health care for all, especially the poor, in furtherance of their belief that health care is a basic right belonging to all human beings.  But the Church has never taught that this obligation must be met by a government-run health system and certainly not a government system which sponsors the killing of children before birth.  Indeed, for the Church, the fundamental requirement of any health care system is that it respects human life.  The Church has been extraordinarily consistent throughout the debate on health care:  any system that authorizes or subsidizes the killing of unborn children is unacceptable.

Click here to read the rest.

Sebelius Says Obama Will Change Bill to Ban Abortion Funding, Pro-Lifers Doubtful

In a weekend interview, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said President Barack Obama wants a change in the language of the main House health care "reform" bill to ensure it doesn't allow taxpayer-funded abortions. However, a pro-life group that has exposed the abortion funding is doubtful that will happen.

 

At issue is HR 3200, the government-run health care plan that includes the Capps Amendment that would open the door for massive abortion funding in both the public option and the tax subsidies for people to purchase health  insurance.

Click here to read the rest.

I'm certainly am not going to hold my breath. There's two things that both Sebelius and Obama have in common -- they both lie frequently and they are both gung-ho culture of death advocates.

NRL: "On government-funded abortion, Obama has duped the news media with head fakes and doubletalk"

NRLC releases two new memoranda refuting:
-- "the Hyde Amendment myth"
-- "the private funds myth."

WASHINGTON (September 8, 2009) -- The following statement may be attributed to Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), which is the federation of right-to-life organizations in all 50 states.

The health care legislation being pushed forward by President Obama would create a federally run insurance plan that would pay for elective abortion with government funds.  The legislation also would provide massive tax-based subsidies to purchase private insurance plans that would cover elective abortions.  Both of these new programs would represent drastic breaks with decades of federal policy against funding abortions in government-subsidized health programs.

Yet, in recent weeks, much of the news media have been manipulated by top Congressional Democrats and by the White House into denying or minimizing the abortion-related policy changes that are being advanced.  Many journalists have casually adopted highly misleading characterizations of the abortion-related content of the legislation -- characterizations that cannot survive careful scrutiny.  For example, many journalists have been snookered into reporting that House Democrats amended their legislation (H.R. 3200) so that the proposed government-run insurance program would be paying for elective abortions with "private funds" -- a claim that is absurd on its face, and that cannot survive thoughtful and skeptical scrutiny.

It is past time for the would-be factcheckers to stop acting as stenographers for the president and Speaker Pelosi on this issue.  Here are some facts for them to check:

*  In 2007, Barack Obama made face-to-face promises to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.  Asked about his plans for "health care reform," Obama said, "in my mind, reproductive care is essential care.  It is basic care, and so it is at the center, and at the heart of the plan that I propose."  He also stated, "What we're doing is to say that we're going to set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don't have health insurance.  It'll be a plan that will provide all essential services, including reproductive services."  The Obama campaign confirmed (and nobody disputes) that "reproductive services" includes elective abortion.  You can watch a short video clip of Mr. Obama making the promises here or here.  Obama has never publicly repudiated those promises.  

*  The health care bills approved by Democrat-controlled committees in the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate during July would fulfill the Obama promises to Planned Parenthood, as quoted above.  This advisory focuses only on the House bill, H.R. 3200, although the bill approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee on July 15 has the same basic problems and more.  (The abortion-related provisions of both bills are summarized in a two-page document posted here, and are explained in a detailed, footnoted memorandum here.)

*  As amended by the House Energy and Commerce Committee with the Capps Amendment (or Capps-Waxman Amendment) on July 30, the House health care bill (H.R. 3200) would explicitly authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to pay for elective abortion under the government-run insurance plan (the "public option").  As FactCheck.org concluded in its August 21 analysis titled "Abortion:  Which Side is Fabricating?," "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."  The abortion coverage would not be optional; no person would be allowed to enroll in the public option without contributing to the abortion fund.  

*  Amendments backed by NRLC to expressly prohibit the government plan from covering elective abortions were opposed by the Democratic chairmen of all three House committees that considered the legislation, and defeated in each committee -- a result for which the White House staff has taken partial credit.  (As The American Prospect reported, "Advocates were able to ensure that both the House tri-committee bill [H.R. 3200] and the Senate HELP bill made it through committee without any amendments limiting access to reproductive care.  But as Tina Tchen, director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, told a July 15 Planned Parenthood conference -- perhaps in an effort to tamp down expectations -- 'That was not easy.  It was not easy in committee.  It won't be easy to hold on the House floor.  It won't be easy to hold on the Senate floor.'"  From "Aborting Health Reform: Without reproductive-health coverage, any public insurance plan is doomed to fail," by Dana Goldstein, The American Prospect, August 18, 2009, http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=aborting_health_reform)

*  The House Democratic leadership has already publicly said that they will not allow the full House to vote on the amendment (the Stupak Amendment) to exclude elective abortion from the government plan and to prevent subsidies from flowing to private plans that cover elective abortion.  This means that a vote to advance H.R. 3200 is a vote to create a federal government insurance program that would fund elective abortions, and also a vote to create a federal government premium subsidy program that would help pay for private insurance plans that cover elective abortions.

THE "PRIVATE FUNDS" MYTH

*  Since July 30, the White House, dozens of congressional Democrats, and many news media "factcheckers" have publicly asserted that the Capps Amendment provides that the "public option" may not spend "federal funds" on elective abortion, but only "private funds."  Such statements have been made, for example, by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.), by President Obama (who said on August 19 that it was a "fabrication" to suggest that the bill would result in "government funding of abortion"), and many others.  Yet, the claim that a federal agency would be paying for a service with "private funds" is beyond misleading -- it is absurd on its face.  The public plan would be an arm of the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), part of the federal Executive Branch.  Once the agency collects "premiums" from enrollees, they would be as much "federal funds" and "public funds" as any funds collected by the IRS. 

* Under the Capps Amendment, abortion providers would send their bills to DHHS and receive payment checks drawn on a federal Treasury account.  It is perplexing that so many in the news media are being duped into adopting the untenable pretext that a federal agency would be expending "private funds."  In reality, this would be direct federal government funding of elective abortion.

*  Aside from the public plan, H.R. 3200 and the Capps Amendment explicitly authorize the proposed premium subsidies to go to private insurance plans that cover elective abortions -- which is something that would not be permitted under any of the existing federal health programs (for federal employees, military, Medicaid, etc.).  These subsidies would be federal funds that would flow directly from the federal Treasury to the insurers.  Regardless of how the books are kept, when the government pays for insurance, the government pays for what the insurance pays for.

*  On September 7, NRLC issued a detailed memorandum demonstrating all of the funds that the "public option" would expend for elective abortions are "federal funds" and "public funds" as those terms are defined in law and as they are used throughout the government.  The memorandum also demonstrates that all of the funds in the premium-subsidy program would be federal government funds.  The memorandum cites documents from the CBO, GAO, Congressional Research Service, and other authoritative sources.  It is here:

http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoFederalFundsnotPrivateFunds.html

THE HYDE AMENDMENT MYTH

*  Throughout his career as an Illinois state senator, a U.S. senator, and a presidential candidate, Barack Obama consistently opposed all limitations on government funding of elective abortion.  During his presidential campaign, he expressed explicit opposition to the Hyde Amendment, the annually renewed provision that prevents federal Medicaid funding of abortion (with narrow exceptions).  Recently, some journalists have reported that Obama endorsed the concept that the government should not fund abortions in an interview with Katie Couric of CBS News, broadcast July 21, but Obama really did no such thing. Instead, he simply made a head fake -- an artful observation that "we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care."  Obama did not endorse the "tradition."  Certainly, it is true that there is such a tradition -- a tradition that Obama has always opposed, and which the Obama-backed health care bill would shatter.

* There is another deception that is being widely employed -- again, with little critical scrutiny from the news media.  During the just-completed congressional recess, innumerable congressional Democrats told their constituents that the pending legislation would not result in government funding of abortion because the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortion.  (Examples are found here and here.)

*  In reality, the Hyde Amendment is not a government-wide law -- it applies only to funds appropriated through the annual appropriations bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services.  As National Right to Life has pointed out for months, and as the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service confirmed in two memoranda issued in late August (which we now have obtained and posted on our website), none of the funds that would be expended by the public plan, and none of the funds that will subsidize the purchase of private insurance plans, will ever flow through an HHS appropriations bill.  Therefore, none of the funds will be covered by the Hyde Amendment.  Many Democratic lawmakers have directly misinformed their constituents by telling them that the Hyde Amendment will apply -- and, for the most part -- the news media have simply transmitted the misinformation, or actually adopted the false claim as fact.

* President Obama himself has made statements of artful indirection involving the Hyde Amendment, in addition to the Katie Couric interview referred to above.  For example, on August 20, 2009, Obama said at a health-care forum, "There are no plans under health reform to revoke the existing prohibition on using federal taxpayer dollars for abortions.  Nobody is talking about changing that existing provision, the Hyde Amendment.  Let's be clear about that.  It's just not true."  This statement was another trademark head fake by Obama.  It is true that the Obama-backed health bill does not directly revoke the Hyde Amendment -- and it is also entirely irrelevant, because Obama's congressional allies have carefully crafted the bill language to allow government funding of elective abortions using federal money that is not covered by the Hyde Amendment. 

* On September 3, NRLC issued a memorandum that explains in detail why the funds in question will not be affected by the Hyde Amendment.  The NRLC memo quotes from, and links to, two new Congressional Research Service memoranda, and other official documents.  It is here:

http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCmemoHydeAmendmentWillNotApply.html

THREE QUESTIONS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA

As the White House warms up its smokescreen generators for a heavy workload during the week ahead, National Right to Life now suggests three questions for the President:

(1)  Mr. President:  During your campaign for President, you promised the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that funding for "reproductive care," including abortion, would be "at the heart" of your health-care plan, and that the "public plan" would cover such services.  The pending House bill, with the Capps-Waxman Amendment, would explicitly authorize your secretary of Health and Human Services to cover all abortions in the government insurance plan, the public option.  If Congress enacts that language, would your Secretary fulfill your promise to Planned Parenthood by covering abortions in the public plan, OR would you order her NOT to cover elective abortions under the government plan?

(2)  Mr. President:  Speaker Pelosi, among others, has insisted that if the public option does pay for abortions, the abortions will be paid for with "private funds."  National Right to Life says that this is misleading and absurd -- that as a matter of law, the funds that would be spent by DHHS under the public option would be federal funds, public funds.  Do you embrace the notion that a federal agency, writing checks drawn on a federal Treasury account, would be expending "private funds," and if so, is that a concept that you think could be applied to other federal agencies -- for example, the CIA, the Pentagon, or the Department of the Interior?

(3)  Mr. President, in recent weeks, you and your staff have made several references to the Hyde Amendment, a provision of the annual appropriations bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services.  For example, you said that the pending healthcare bill would not "revoke" the Hyde Amendment.  National Right to Life says this is a "head fake" -- that is, irrelevant with respect to the pending healthcare bill, because none of the money expended by the public option or by the premium-subsidy program would be covered by the Hyde Amendment.  However, the Hyde Amendment does cover the federal Medicaid program, and the Hyde Amendment expires every September 30.  National Right to Life points out that you have always opposed the Hyde Amendment.  Are you willing to change that position now, and to pledge now that you will actively support renewal of the Hyde Amendment next year, and each year for the remainder of your term, so that federal Medicaid funds would not be used to fund elective abortions?  And if you are not willing to make that promise, are you willing to at least promise that you will not, next year or in any subsequent year, issue a veto threat on an HHS appropriations bill because the bill would renew the Hyde Amendment?  And if you are not willing to make either of those promises, why should anyone believe that the Medicaid program will not be paying for elective abortions by the end of your term (in addition to the abortions that would be paid for under the new programs that would be created by H.R. 3200)?

****

Addendum:  Some members of Congress have even managed to mix the "Hyde Amendment myth" and the "your government will be spending private funds myth" together.  For example, in an August 28, 2009, "telephone town hall," here, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nv.) said: "Another myth that's being thrown around is that health insurance reform uses money for abortions.  Not true. . . . Next, the House bill states, and I quote, health insurance providers aren't required to or prohibited from offering abortion coverage.  The cost of such coverage would be exclusively paid by premiums, not by public subsidies.  Public funding for abortion would be permitted only as under current law, that's the so-called Hyde Amendment, named after Henry Hyde, who I served with in the House.  And as you know, that is in cases of rape, incest or when a woman's life is in danger."

Do You Trust the Government with Control of Your Health Care?

~ Via Students for Life.

Womens Voices in the Health Care Debate

 Janet Morana, Georgette Forney, and Fr. Frank Pavone bring to the health care reform debate the voices of women harmed by abortion.

Are You a Catholic Against Obama Care?

Are you a Catholic Against ObamaCare? -- Would you like to see changes made in the proposed health care reform that has been proposed by the Obama Administration which mandates abortion and supports euthanasia?

If so, leave a comment and we'll add you to the blogroll.

Why Catholics Should Oppose Obama Care

USCCB Criteria for Health Care Reform

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have issued the following criteria for reform of our health care system and their key policy priorities:

Criteria for Reform

Respect for Life. Whether it preserves and enhances the sanctity and dignity of human life from conception to natural death.

Priority Concern for the Poor. Whether it gives special priority to meeting the most pressing health care needs of the poor and underserved, ensuring that they receive quality health services.

Universal Access. Whether it provides ready universal access to comprehensive health care for every person living in the United States.

Comprehensive Benefits. Whether it provides comprehensive benefits sufficient to maintain and promote good health; to provide preventive care; to treat disease, injury, and disability appropriately; and to care for persons who are chronically ill or dying.
Pluralism. Whether it allows and encourages the involvement of the public and private sectors, including the voluntary, religious, and nonprofit sectors, in the delivery of care and services; and whether it ensures respect for religious and ethical values in the delivery of health care for
consumers and for individual and institutional providers.

Quality. Whether it promotes the development of processes and standards that will help to achieve quality and equity in health services, in the training of providers, and in the informed participation of consumers in decision making on health care.

Cost Containment and Controls. Whether it creates effective cost-containment measures that reduce waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary care; measures that control rising costs of competition, commercialism, and administration; and measures that provide incentives to individuals and providers for effective and economical use of limited resources.

Equitable Financing. Whether it assures society's obligation to finance universal access to comprehensive health care in an equitable fashion, based on ability to pay; and whether proposed cost-sharing arrangements are designed to avoid creating barriers to effective care for the poor and vulnerable.

Does The Obama Care Plan Meet This Criteria?

NO

The Obama Health Care Reform Plan violates the Catholic criteria of upholding the sanctity and dignity of human life from conception to natural death.

The bills approved so far by House and Senate committees include mandated abortion coverage and abortion funding. (Via the USCCB)

Obama Care promotes euthanasia:

Pages 425-430: "end-of-life" counseling and courses will be obligatory in this heinous bill- the Hemlock Society (now euphemistically called Compassion and Choices) has admitted to working with members of congress on this section of the bill;

Page 429: nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants can have authority to write end-of-life orders.

Of the 31 occurrences of the word "planning" in the text of this massive bill, fifteen of them are in the sections dealing with death planning (always called "advanced care planning"), nine are in the sections on "family planning" (code words for abortion, sex education and contraception) and the other seven are about government bureaucratic functioning. Isn't it strange that a society which has worshipped "freedom of choice" for so long is now on the verge of surrendering its freedom and choices to government planners?

Obama Care fails to respect and protect the conscience rights of medical personnel and health care providers.

Obama Care rations medical care for the weak, sick, and disabled.

Page 29: healthcare will be rationed by government regulators;

Pages 30 and 42: government committees will be set up to decide what healthcare we can and can't have - a "Health Choices Commissioner" (Commissar?) will be in charge of these decisions;

Page 239: the government will limit and reduce physician services for Medicaid which means that the dependent elderly and those most unable to access other services will suffer;

Page 341: the government will be able to disqualify Medicare Part B and HMOs if they don't get with the program, which means that they can effectively put them out of business as competition; and no one will be able to sue the government for a de facto monopoly on healthcare or for price-fixing (p. 124);

Obama Care violates the principle of equitable financing as well as the religious beliefs and consciences of individuals.

Low-income Americans opposed to abortion will be “forced by the federal government” to pay for abortions when they purchase the public plan, which means that practicing Catholic non-white poor women will be forced to pay for the abortions of rich white women—women who equate abortion with a root canal. (Via The Catholic League.)

More Information:

From Family Planning to Death Planning -- by Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer, President, Human Life International

Fr. Frank Pavone, Director of Priests for Life: Health Care Alert

American Health Care Reform: A Good End Does Not Justify Evil Means -- Commentary by Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro Carámbula

United States Conference Catholic Bishops Health Care Reform Website

Letters from bishops:

August 11 letter from Cardinal Rigali to House of Representatives
July 29 Letter from Cardinal Rigali to House Energy and Commerce Committee
July 17 Letter from Bishop William Murphy to Congress
Statement of Bishop William Murphy to Senate Committee on Finance
March 26 Joint Letter to the Senate

STOP THE ABORTION MANDATE