Alexandria, VA - In response to inaccurate online media reports, Catholic Charities USA states unequivocally that it does not support any plan to reform health care and/or any proposed legislative provision that allows or promotes the funding of abortions or that compels any health care provider or institution to provide such a service. In fact, Catholic Charities USA will continue to work with the Catholic Health Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to ensure that any health care reform legislation will not include such provisions. All media accounts or public comments that misrepresent this position are inaccurate.
"These attacks appear to be politically motivated by opponents of health care reform. They are distortions of the truth and disingenuous. Catholic Charities USA will continue to work to reform health care in a way that is consistent with the teachigns of our faith." said Fr. Larry Snyder, President.
-http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1796
That was a statement on the Catholic Charities website.
I'll be up front in stating that I honestly don't know enough about the specifics of the plans before either house of Congress right now. I don't know the perfect solution, either.
I also want to clarify that I'm not condemning the Catholic Charities' statement of standing firm in their values.
A while ago, I ran across this quote: "What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers." -Dr. Glen Harold Stassen, professor of Christian Ethics, Fuller Theological Seminary
If we provide better health care in general, even if it does include the funding of abortion, I wonder how much it would reduce abortions due simply to that better access to affordable health care. I don't know, but I suspect that is part of what would happen. I could be very wrong. I don't know.
Also, health care reform would help to provide life-saving care for people who currently cannot afford it. So what if the public funding of abortions (which may be reduced through the provision of health care) is the trade off of saving other lives? It seems to me either way, we're going to be a loss of some lives and the saving of others.
I honestly wish that there wouldn't be public funding for abortions, but if that's the trade off to get an otherwise good health care bill, I think I would have to be willing to make that compromise. Then again, I have always been an advocate of reducing abortions one person at a time, through love and support, emotional and financial. I honestly don't think very many people truly want to have abortions.
I just think health care reform is too important to completely pass up for one possible provision. I think health care is an important life issue, just like abortion.
So, please, let this incite respectful conversation/reflection. I would love to hear your thoughts!
14 comments:
Now don't hold me to this - I'm still trying to figure it out.
I think that although no public funding for abortion is really important, that it's not going to happen. So why block an important bill that will give health care to millions who need it, when your reason for stopping it won't change anything?
I know that if we always cave like this, then nothing will ever change. But the Obama administration (and most of America) isn't on my side on this one. So my agenda isn't going to win.
Too practical at the risk of loosing sight of my ideals? Perhaps. But respect for life includes more than just the abortion issue. And while abortion is one of (if not the) single most tragic thing that is happening today, we have to change hearts and minds before we can change policy. In the meantime, why not work on other important issues? The rest of the world doesn't just go away while we focus on the abortion debate.
That's kinda my point of view, too, Meggie. Is it not better to do a little toward dealing with life issues than to do nothing at all just because what we can do is imperfect? Seems silly to me, too.
Also, the USCCB wrote a letter to Congress members that I found today, also through Catholic Charities. It basically outlines the need for no public funding for abortion as well as the need for a health care bill as a fundamental life issue. It was pretty well-written. http://tinyurl.com/mc7fwl
Obviously, I care more about the second part than I do the first. As per your reasons and mine. I'm not a fan of public funding of abortion either, but I think it's a stupid reason to stop this bill that is also fundamentally a life issue.
That was a very thoughtful argument, and i fully agree that the fight against abortion will not be won through the government, however, supporting laws that would simplify the process is something that I cannot budge on. The trade off isnt worth it. Trade off is not an option. Health care reform can happen without having a pro-abortion clause attached to it. I have to support both health care reform and pro-life issues. I have to have both. I cant sacrifice one for the other. They both have to come. Not one over the other.
"Our 1998 statement Living the Gospel of Life declares, “Abortion and
euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human life and dignity because
they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental good and the condition for all
others” (no. 5). Abortion, the deliberate killing of a human being before birth, is
never morally acceptable and must always be opposed. Cloning and destruction
of human embryos for research or even for potential cures are always wrong. The
purposeful taking of human life by assisted suicide and euthanasia is not an act
of mercy, but an unjustifiable assault on human life. Genocide, torture, and the
direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants in war or terrorist attacks are
always wrong." from Faithful Citizenship by the USCCB
So, Colin, are you sacrificing health care for abortion?
Because I'm looking at the political climate. And I don't see a bill passing that specifically prohibits abortion. I guess part of it will depend on what sort of reform goes through - if it's just a public option, it ideally won't be taxpayer-funded. If it's more like universal health care like some other countries such as France, Canada, etc. the story would be a little bit different.
You mention it specifically including abortion, but I don't see it actually singling abortion out. So what if it doesn't specifically say anything either way?
I don't see it passing if it specifically prohibits abortion, particularly because the Republicans are already fighting almost any type of health care reform (or at least many of them are), so that wouldn't get any Republican votes. And it would probably lose some Democrat votes. So that would be a major obstacle.
So if we have a clause that specifically prohibits abortion, it won't pass. If we don't abortion might be included. So that looks close to having to choose one over the other.
Which brings me back to my original thought: Do you think that having better access to health care would reduce the number of people who feel compelled to have abortions?
i would support it if abortion was not mentioned in the bill at all. if the bill were "abortion-neutral" if it left it alone. but that isnt what we are talking about. we are talking about abortion being included as part of "healthcare." if not a single comment were made about abortion in the entire bill, i would be fine with it.
Fair enough. Thanks! :)
One more thought: Does the USCCB's emphasis on the abortion issue create a false emphasis on the issue that isn't even really being discussed in Congress? Because that's the only place I've heard the topic addressed.
Is that dangerous?
About your last comment - I think that it is creating a false emphasis in the public sphere. Except that for the USCCB, everything that they've said for the past year (and maybe longer) has basically just been about abortion. So for them, the false emphasis is true. Does that make sense? Like, if this was an isolated incident, I might be worried, but right now it's totally in character.
I think that your question really drills down to the deeper one of should the emphasis on abortion by the USCCB be as strong as it is? And I don't have an answer for that.
The issue of life is paramount to Catholics, therefore, the leaders of the American church are making the stance clear. The emphasize it so strongly and so often to make it clear to the government that it is not an issue we are willing to compromise on. It is not an issue we will just let slide by. To the USCCB abortion is not just an issue, it is THE issue. Until the USCCB begins to see the situation improving, they will just continue to make their point clear.
But, Colin, we're talking about the emphasis is so strong on abortion that it detracts from other life issues. The issue of life is of utmost importance to Catholics. But abortion is not the only aspect of the issue of life.
So is the Catholic emphasis on abortion detracting from the life issue as a whole?
How can the emphasis on a part detract from the whole? Although, if you read the documents it specifically talks about life, not necessarily just abortion. We tend to translate life issues to just abortion. The USCCB keeps the same statement about life issues, the interpretation that Congress reads and that we get from media is that it is abortion. Maybe the emphasis on abortion is because it kills 304985049385093485490385 times as many people each year. I, however, do not think this detracts from the life movement as a whole.
Meggie, perhaps my question is whether the emphasis on abortion by the USCCB should be from a structural standpoint (laws).
Should they first work on reducing the number of abortions by creating conditions in which people don't feel like they have to have an abortion? In what ways can we do this?
My mom made dinner for a family who had asked the Seton pro-life group for some help. One of the women running the thing made a comment about how this woman 'really knows how to work the system.' That's the wrong kind of attitude. What does it mean? That this woman really knows how to ask for help when she needs it. That's an example of one change that needs to be made in a program that's overall what we really need to do.
When a focus on outlawing abortion detracts from ways we can create a better system. That's how an emphasis on one part detracts from the whole.
That and that the life issue is split between political parties, so when we're working to change the system one half gets sacrificed for the other half.
Post a Comment