Richard Doerflinger, Associate Director of Pro-Life Activities at the US Conference on Catholic Bishops -- and a key player on health care reform and the Catholic Church -- posted this comment on the WSJ.com version of my modest proposal:
" I think Steve Waldman's proposals on abortion neutrality are well worth considering, though I'd also like to clarify a couple of points about current abortion policy and the House health care bill.
The Hyde amendment in current law prevents federal funding of abortion AND of any benefits package that includes abortion (except for very rare circumstances -- danger to the mother's life and cases of rape or incest). That status quo could be respected, while still allowing purchasers to pay for an optional abortion rider with their own money. The House bill does the opposite: Federal subsidies can be used for entire packages that include elective abortions, but the plans that include such abortions will simply state that $1 a month is the cost of the abortions and that this comes from the private premium dollars. But there would e no real separation: The federal subsidies would be setting up the entire system and lining up its provider network of abortion practitioners, so federal funds (and everyone's premiums in the plan, whether they like it or not) woudl be facilitating abortions.The House bill also does not simply leave open a possibility that elective abortions will be included in the public plan. The Act says that the essential benefits in this plan WILL be determined by the Secretary of HHS, and the current Secretary's strong support for abortion funding is well know. It is a fair prediction that broad abortion coverage will be mandated in this plan, and every American who buys the government-run plan will be required to pay that premium for abortion.
Letting the federal subsidies go to health benefits packages that everyone agrees provide only legitimate health care, then letting people who want abortion coverage to purchase it with their own money as a separate rider, would reflect current law and allow freedom of choice for people who abhor abortion as well as those who favor it.
That's such a crazy idea that it might just work. "
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
(Just a note up-front I am pro-choice). The problem I have with the Hyde amendment, and others like the solution outlined above, is where does it stop?
Do Jehovah Witnesses get to opt out of funding blood transfusions? If stem cell research really DOES come through with a procedure that is successful will that be an optional pay-as-you-go procedure?
There will always be government spending that someone, somewhere is against. I'm against many things that the government spends money on that I consider immoral, but I have no law exempting me from paying taxes on it.
But how many things are we forced to fund that directly kill innocent lives?
Abortion is the act of killing a living human being. Why should anyone be forced to fund abortions?
Churmouse writes: "But how many things are we forced to fund that directly kill innocent lives?"
How about wars, for starters? Where is the religious right's outrage at the innocent lives lost to this country's wars? Will you withold the portion of your taxes that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I am amazed and troubled by the number of people who loudly proclaim their pro-life views, while at the same time supporting war and capital punishment. You can't be pro-life and pro-war and pro-capital punishment at the same time. "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty straightforward.
If one holds all life to be sacred, then the taking of any human life is wrong. Witholding access to the care that sustains life is also wrong. Especially if one bases that decision on a "pro-life" double standard.
A Catholic Bishop who supports abortion neutrality! Some Catholic Bishop!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.