Those Catholics aren’t anything if they aren’t consistent!
..keep on beating the pro-life drum!

As one who discerns a yawning gap between the moral status of a zygote and a child, and who wants every child to be as well cared for as can be, I support access to abortion as wide as to any other medical procedure. But I understand that a majority of Americans disagree, and oppose the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions.
I’m not at all sure, though, that Americans oppose the use of one’s own income for that purpose. The Stupak amendment limits women’s access to insurance policies that cover abortion. I believe that restriction wrongs both women and children, and I’m sorry it has been adopted.

This is nothing to celebrate. The restrictions on tax payer money for abortions will be removed later on. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has just ruled that Catholic Institutions must pay for contraceptives for their employees. Failure to comply could cause these institutions to be charged with discrimination. The fact that this violates official Catholic teaching did not stop the Federal Government from ignoring the religious beliefs of these institutions. The Federal Government will remove the restrictions in the Stupak amendment, whether in continued wrangling in Congress, through the Courts, or through regulatory agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The religious opposition to funding abortion through tax payer money will receive no more consideration than the case of Catholic Institutions.

Are we just passing on the responsibility of the church to the government?

Hi Dan:
The short answer is— partially yes, partially no. The church is so divided it could never pull this off, even within a particular denomination. In other words, our fractured state of ecclesiology prevents us from doing the job, and it is a job that needs to be done. We can’t wait around for centuries for the church to get its act together. And having lived overseas I will tell you now— some kind of universal healthcare is better than no kind.
Blessings
Ben W.

Max Baucus, who should know, says the Stupak Amendment won’t added to the final Senate bill. (An equivalent amendment proposed by Hatch was voted down in committee.) On the other hand, Ben Nelson says he won’t vote for the bill (or for cloture?) unless it contains the Stupak restriction.
So it’s hard to say whether this restriction on access to insurance for abortion will be enacted into law or not.
But if it is, it will surely be upheld by the five anti-abortion members of the Supreme Court, and not unlikely by other members of the court as well.

As to the more specific point about abortion funding my prediction is that in one form or another it will be covered under this bill. Trust me, it will happen. As to the broader question of universal health care I am not in favor of this end being achieved by further government control/involvement. I agree that our current system needs significant changes in order to serve the public in a broader scope, but there are free market solutions to this end and we should take seriously these options. Unfortunately no one in Washington is interested in these options so we have been presented with only two choices – what we currently have and the government’s plan. Neither is good.

Dan, in addition to what Dr. Witherington has said, I don’t think that the (corporate) Church wants the responsibility. “We” fuss – but we don’t want it. I don’t think we are willing to make the sacrifice that it would take.

i. Christopher Smith says the Stupak amendment would reduce abortions by 20%. His may be an underestimate.
wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/11/10/stupak-reac/
This would be a quite considerable extension of government control and involvement in the lives of women, men, and children.
II. Tens of thousands Americans die for lack of access to medical care. The proposed health care reform bills would save many of these lives. They would regulate coverage by insurance companies and provide subsidies for those to whom coverage was extended. Private insurance companies would remain profit-making enterprises (as they did not when Switzerland extended coverage) and the value of the policies they hold would increase
How might it be that by means of even less government control and involvement still thousands of those who die for lack of access to care would live?

Were it the case that insurance companies were willing to reform themselves without government inducement or regulations, it would have already happened. But this is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. The insurance companies have had ample warnings and time to repent and do better when it comes to health care. Instead what we have seen is the ridiculous rise in the cost of health care and premiums due to a whole series of factors, not the least of which is pure greed. The less healthy America is, the more some people get rich off our misery. So, you will not find me having much sympathy for companies that cut off the elderly, cut off people with pre-existing conditions, refuse to insure some people and so on. All we are talking about, in any case at this point is a ‘government option’ at most. This is hardly the same thing as a government take over of all our health care, and it is dishonest to say that it is such a takeover. Go read the synopses on line of the two bills
BW3

I lived out of the country and experienced a government run system personally. It was fine if you did not get sick or at least not very sick. Otherwise there were long waits for procedures and long travel for some procedures. There were also severe restrictions on care due to limited funds. This included closing entire wings of the local hospital. In short, rationing was a continuing reality.
I’m not a fan of health insurance companies, but it is too narrow to make them the focus of health care problems. As long as the costs for care remain out of reach of most people we will have a problem. Shouldn’t we be just as concerned, perhaps more concerned, when providers cut off the elderly and others because they can’t pay their every increasing charges? Why are the insurance companies more to blame than the providers?

“it was the [temporary and utterly illusary] elimination of funds for elective abortions from the healthcare bill that finally satisfied [dishonest or easily duped] conservative Democrats in the house”

If you cut 100% of the profit out of the insurance companies, you’d reduce premiums by maybe 3%.
Taking an entire broken system and laying the blame at the feet of one bad actor is a recipe for disaster. We’ll be looking for a new scapegoat in 5 years.

Micah
November 11, 2009 12:51 PM
If you cut 100% of the profit out of the insurance companies, you’d reduce premiums by maybe 3%.
———————————————————–
I understand that — and I forget where I heard it — insurance companies are making very little profit.