I survived Roe v. Wade because my parents said “yes” to the life that God created.

Thirty-eight years ago today, the United States Supreme Court made its landmark ruling on Roe v. Wade, legalizing abortion in our country. Since January 22, 1973, over 50 million babies have been murdered because their mothers were given the right to choose.

On this day, as the church commemorates the Roe v. Wade decision, dioceses throughout the United States are celebrating Masses of Peace and Justice. Let us continue to pray for the most vulnerable among us. Let us also continue the fight to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Source: USCCB | The above document is the official release from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and was used with permission.

I urge all of my fellow Floridians to get out and vote.

Most importantly, vote for LIFE!

The following is a video from our friends at Catholic Vote…

Florida's 8th Congressional District | Source: National Atlas

Over the last several weeks, campaign ads for the upcoming November elections have begun to increase, especially in high priority, battleground districts. Florida’s 8th Congressional District is one such district. Jockeying for the seat in the House of Representatives are one outspoken, ultra-liberal Democrat, Alan Grayson, and a handful of conservative Republican hopefuls. Not to mention those running for the seat who have other or no party affiliations.

In November 2008, Democratic newcomer Alan Grayson was able to oust Republican Ric Keller who represented the district since 2001. Now, Grayson is up for re-election. After his vote on the health care bill and the stimulus, many of his constituents are beginning to question whether or not he is the right person to represent their district.

Before we can get to the November general election, however, we must first go through primary voting season, which takes place for this particular district on August 24th. While there are no Democrats running against Grayson in the Democratic primary, there are seven Republicans who will have to duke it out come August. However, there is only one that stands out to me.

Daniel Webster | Source: Palm Beach Post

Former State Senator Daniel Webster is running to secure the nomination in order to defeat Alan Grayson. Since his time in the Florida State Senate, Webster has repeatedly defended the rights of the most vulnerable among us, staunchly supporting multiple pro-life efforts.

According to Project Vote Smart, while in the Florida Legislature, Senator Webster voted yes on two key votes backed by members of the pro-life movement: SB 2400 and CS HB 1497. SB 2400 would have required women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound; however, the bill did not go on to the Governor’s desk. CS HB 1497 determined that:

1. Third trimester abortions can only be performed if there is a certified statement of a medical emergency and if they are performed in a hospital;
2. An ultrasound be performed before an abortion;
3. Women seeking an abortion must be given the option to view the ultrasound;
4. A 24 hour waiting period for abortions, except in the case of a medical emergency;
5. A guardian must be appointed to act on behalf of a minor when a minor petitions a court for an exception to the parental notification requirements;
6. A civil cause of action for parents of a minor who has had an abortion for failure to provide actual or constructive notice against the physician who performed the abortion.

Over the last several days, I have been in communication with the Webster campaign seeking more information on the former State Senator’s viewpoint on immigration reform. In my communications I repeatedly wrote about the Catholic stance on immigration. After my initial email seeking Webster’s position, I received a reply from one of his aides:

Our country is a nation of immigrants. Those immigrants, however, came through the front door legally. America is a nation of laws, and must follow and enforce them in order to maintain justice and the fundamental freedom we hold dear.

With that being said, while in the Legislature, Daniel Webster did move legislation forward that would speed up the process for immigrants currently in the country who were seeking citizenship. While we cannot excuse illegal entrance, we can direct them toward the front door, and provide incentives to moving in the right direction.

While it is a bit vague and does not go into too much detail, Webster’s views are similar to that of the Church. Mind you, the Catholic view on immigration reform is complex so a 100% compliance with our position is, in no way, likely for one lawmaker. However, it is something to strive for and I commend Mr. Webster for his viewpoint on the issue.

Since the passing of the Arizona Immigration Law, many people, including some of our lawmakers, have come out in support of the deportation of those undocumented individuals in our country. Many Americans believe that the “illegals” in this country are here to expand the drug trade, cause violence in our cities and take American jobs. In reality, this only describes a small percentage of the actual immigrants. They seem to forget that this country is a country founded by immigrants. They often criticize the Catholic Church for being accepting of “illegals.”

After Bishop Kicanas appeared before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law on July 14th, one person even went to the lengths of calling the Church greedy, arguing that the only reason the Catholic Church is open to Hispanic immigrants is because the church would benefit. While many of the Hispanics are Catholic, the church seeks only to accept immigrants because we stand for the advancement of the rights and dignity of all individuals.

That being said, the Church respects the rights of countries to develop immigration statutes in order to protect their borders. However, in doing so, countries must also guarantee that all persons will be respected and given the dignity that was given to them by their Creator. The Church also believes that countries should work together to ease the causes for migration, which is easier said than done most of the time.

As a country founded on Christian principals, I think it fitting that we be reminded of the words of the Holy Scriptures:

• “So, you, too, must befriend the alien, for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt” (Deut. 10:17-19)
• “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” (Mt. 25:35)

As a resident in Florida’s 8th Congressional District, this race is of interest to me. However, because I am not a registered Republican, I cannot vote in the primary because Florida is a closed primary state. Nonetheless, because of his stance on pro-life and immigration issues and his determination to bring fiscal responsibility to a Washington that has become broken, I will do everything I can to support Senator Webster’s candidacy. If he is fortunate enough to win the primary, I vow to throw my support behind him come November. He is our only chance to defeat Alan Grayson.

President Obama signs Health Care Reform into Law | Source: White House

We learned sad news today out of Pennsylvania: $160 million worth of taxpayer money is going to fund high risk insurance plans that include coverage of legal abortions. Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), stated: “This is just the first proof of the phoniness of President Obama’s assurances that federal funds would not subsidize abortion — but it will not be the last.”

Johnson also stated: “President Obama successfully opposed including language in the bill to prevent federal subsidies for abortions, and now the Administration is quietly advancing its abortion-expanding agenda through administrative decisions such as this, which they hope will escape broad public attention.”

Many people who supported the legislation after President Obama promised the issuance of an Executive Order, which assured no federal dollars would go to the funding of abortions, have said this is an effort by pro-life groups to politicize life issues in order to bring down true health care reform. Included in that group is Representative Bart Stupak, who issued the following statement today:

“This is the latest example of some right to life groups politicizing life issues in an effort to undermine health care reform. The President’s Executive Order makes clear that federal funds may not be used for abortion under the Affordable Care Act – including the pre-existing condition insurance pools currently being implemented in Pennsylvania and states across the country. In accordance with the Executive Order, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has directed states that federal funds provided under health care reform may not be used to fund abortion. HHS has reiterated this policy in response to the current accusations from the National Right to Life Committee. While these recycled scare tactics may make for good headlines, we should not lose sight of the fact that tens of thousands of individuals across the nation who have been denied coverage by health insurance companies due to pre-existing conditions will for the first time have access to affordable health insurance. We need to take a whole life approach to health care which looks out for those who are out of the womb as well as those in the womb.”

Meanwhile, a CNSNews.com article shows how those who opposed Obamacare from the get-go are now basically saying, “we told you so”:

If you want proof that President Obama’s Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham, look no further than Pennsylvania, says House Republican Leader John Boehner (Ohio).

Boehner and other Republicans point to reports that the Health and Human Services Department is giving Pennsylvania $160 million to set up a new high-risk insurance pool that will cover any abortion that is legal in the state.

“The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable,” Boehner said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Just last month at the White House, I asked President Obama to provide the American people with a progress report on the implementation of his Executive Order, which purports to ban taxpayer-funding of abortions. Unfortunately, the President provided no information, and the American people are still waiting for answers.”

President Obama pledged that under his health care plan “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

In a May 13 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Boehner asked if her department has provided guidance to the states on how to implement the president’s Executive Order on abortion funding. Boehner also asked Sebelius if the new federal high-risk pools would exclude abortion coverage.

He says his questions remain unanswered.

“Millions of Americans care deeply about this aspect of the new law and its implementation, and no progress report is complete without detailed information about it,” Boehner wrote to Sebelius.

The conservative Family Research Council says the $160 million in taxpayer funds for Pennsylvania is the first known instance of direct federal funding of abortions through the new high-risk insurance pools.

The abortion funding for pool participants validates the arguments pro-life groups made throughout the health care debate – that taxpayer dollars will fund abortions, said Tom McClusky, senior vice president of the Family Research Council’s political action arm.

“For our efforts to remove the bill’s abortion funding, we were called ‘deceivers’ by President Obama and ‘liars’ by his allies. Now we know who the true deceivers and liars really are,’ McClusky said.

“This action by the Obama Administration also exposes the worthlessness of President Obama’s Executive Order that supposedly would prevent federal funding of abortion, but which both sides, including Planned Parenthood, agreed was unenforceable.

“While the American people deserve an apology from President Obama for his deception, we should only be satisfied when this Pennsylvania abortion funding is rescinded and the health care law repealed.

McClusky noted that the new health care law also includes $12.5 billion for community health centers, and $6 billion for co-ops, both of which can fund abortions. And some people will use tax credits to help them pay for plans that cover abortion.

Even before it’s fully implemented, the Democrats’ health care plan “is already being exposed as a high-taxing, poorly thought-out, and taxpayer-funding-of-abortion monstrosity,” McClusky said.

Republican leader Boehner says House Republicans would codify the Hyde amendment, thus prohibiting all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. Under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage would not receive federal funds.

All we can do now is pray and, come November, vote your conscience.

Governor Crist speaking in Orlando at a "Putting America Back to Work" town hall. | Source: State of Florida

In the latest development in the race for the open U.S. Senate seat in Florida, Governor Charlie Crist is coming under fire for removing the pro-life section of his campaign website. This comes on the day the legislature sent him a bill that would allow women to see an ultrasound of their baby before an abortion.

Crist has already hinted he will veto the legislation, which also allows Florida to opt out of some of the abortion funding under the new national health care law President Barack Obama signed.

That he would potentially veto a pro-life bill with broad support from voters is another indication of his strategy to leave the Republican Party and run as an independent.

Knowing he may veto the bill, the campaign of pro-life Republican candidate Marco Rubio informed LifeNews.com today that Crist’s campaign scrubbed his web site of a section touting Crist as a supposedly pro-life candidate.

“Now that he has left the Republican Party in order to win an election and is trying to attract liberal votes, the Crist campaign yesterday removed the ‘pro-life/family’ issue page of its website,” Rubio spokesman Alex Burgos told LifeNews.com today. “In doing so, Charlie Crist eliminated any reference to being ‘pro-life’ in a transparent attempt to hide his position in order to win an election.”

“Crist is flip-flopping again,” Burgos continued. “When he was a Republican trying to win the Republican primary, Crist repeatedly stated he was pro-life and even said he would ‘fight for pro-life legislation if he’s elected to the Senate.’”

“Will Charlie Crist flip-flop further, no longer call himself ‘pro-life’ and revert back to his 1998 pro-choice position?” he asks.

The Rubio campaign made a screen shot of the pro-life section formerly appearing on the Crist web site.

On April 30th, the Florida Legislature passed HB 1143 — with the House backing it 76-44 and the Senate 23-16. Both are short of the two-thirds necessary to override a gubernatorial veto.

While Crist and abortion advocates erroneously claim the bill forces a woman to view her ultrasound before undergoing an abortion, the text of the bill says women are given the option.

Section 390.0111 of the bill, line 512 states: “The woman has a right to decline to view the ultrasound images after she is informed of her right and offered an opportunity to view them.”

Though the measure doesn’t require women to see the ultrasound — it gives them the option — Crist claimed it did in a recent Tampa Tribune interview.

“On two fronts it disturbs me,” Crist said, according to the newspaper. “That you would force a woman to go through this procedure . . . almost seems mean-spirited. To have your government impose on you, listen to a lecture, then on top of that, you have to pay for it.”

He said there is “probably not a whole lot” that would convince him to sign House Bill 1143.

Rubio has also urged Crist to sign the bill.

“It is my hope that Governor Crist will come down on the side of life, and sign HB 1143 into law, or at least allow it to become law without his signature,” Rubio said in a statement LifeNews.com received. “This commonsense measure is a small but important step toward providing women with vital information during perhaps the most critical healthcare decision they will ever make.”

In 2006, there were 95,586 abortions performed in Florida.

Source | LifeNews.com

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about the issue of abortion:

• 2270: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”
• 2271: “Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”
• 2272: “The Church does not…intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”
• 2273: “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.”

Shortly after President Obama signed the legislation into law on Wednesday, I made the following statement on my Twitter page because I was completely dumbfounded that Americans had stooped to this level of immaturity: “People have been sending death threats to those in Congress who voted for the HCR bill?!?!? Needs to stop!!!” When did we begin viewing our fellow Americans, our brothers and sisters in Christ, as enemies. Well, I was not the only one experiencing that disappointment in my fellow Americans.

Today, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, Director of Media Relations for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, issued the following statement on the USCCB Media blog:

The heat in the aftermath of passage of health care reform reveals the depth of feeling among those for and against the landmark bill that affects all Americans. Such heat, however, cannot justify the verbal and physical violence that has ensued.

If we needed health care because of the crisis affecting the sick, especially the weakest among us, we need even more a move toward civility, if not for our own betterment then at least for the betterment of our children.

Politics has become a kind of blood sport. News junkies over the weekend heard reports of crowds shouting racist remarks and individuals spitting at African American lawmakers, including John Lewis, who suffered violence years ago when he marched for Civil Rights. Surely he – and all of us – has a right to expect that that chapter of despicable, racist violence long over.

We’ve seen reports of homes and offices of lawmakers vandalized and heard of death threats. Anonymous messages are being left on voicemails – I even got one from a nun, for goodness sake. If that isn’t proof that we’ve gone astray I don’t know what is.

The wonderfully unedited Web may share some blame as it gives free reign to those who say whatever suits their strategic purpose, truthful or not. Their presentations – usually anonymous – underscore a significant failing of the Web, lack of editors and accountability.

We’ve seen columnists write with vitriol as they demonize those with whom they disagree. There’s a viciousness which goes beyond what can be called acerbic writing.

We need to address this climate.

The intolerance and incivility did not begin with legislation passed Sunday night. It is not unrelated to the divisions that exist in our country and, sadly, even in our church.

It starts with how we view others – as enemies rather than as fellow travelers on the journey of life. It includes whether or not we’re willing to give another the benefit of the doubt, accepting that their intentions are good, even if their goals differ from ours.

It involves accepting the fact that each of us is a child of God and precious to Him and our brother or sister.

It involves how we speak and terms for one another.

Last Tuesday, March 23, Cardinal Francis George, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, noted the bishops’ disappointment that the health reform legislation did not include all they sought, especially adequate protection of rights of conscience and guarantees that federal funds would not go for abortion services. But he also noted that politicians on both sides of the aisle had worked nobly for the protection of life and decried those who would vilify them. Even in disappointment, the bishops were civil and generous. There position is worth emulating.

In 1959, Pope John XXIII, in his first encyclical, “On Truth, Unity and Peace,” in a Spirit of Charity, quoted a maxim attributed to St. Augustine, “In essentials, unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things charity.”

In all things charity surely is the message we all need today. It’s not a bad start to Holy Week.

SOURCE: USCCB Media Blog

PHOTO SOURCE: Los Angeles Times

For nearly a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for reform of our health care system so that all may have access to the care that recognizes and affirms their human dignity. Christian discipleship means, “working to ensure that all people have access to what makes them fully human and fosters their human dignity” (United States Catechism for Adults, page 454). Included among those elements is the provision of necessary and appropriate health care.

For too long, this question has gone unaddressed in our country. Often, while many had access to excellent medical treatment, millions of others including expectant mothers, struggling families or those with serious medical or physical problems were left unable to afford the care they needed. As Catholic bishops, we have expressed our support for efforts to address this national and societal shortcoming. We have spoken for the poorest and most defenseless among us. Many elements of the health care reform measure signed into law by the President address these concerns and so help to fulfill the duty that we have to each other for the common good. We are bishops, and therefore pastors and teachers. In that role, we applaud the effort to expand health care to all.

Nevertheless, for whatever good this law achieves or intends, we as Catholic bishops have opposed its passage because there is compelling evidence that it would expand the role of the federal government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion. The statute appropriates billions of dollars in new funding without explicitly prohibiting the use of these funds for abortion, and it provides federal subsidies for health plans covering elective abortions. Its failure to preserve the legal status quo that has regulated the government’s relation to abortion, as did the original bill adopted by the House of Representatives last November, could undermine what has been the law of our land for decades and threatens the consensus of the majority of Americans: that federal funds not be used for abortions or plans that cover abortions. Stranger still, the statute forces all those who choose federally subsidized plans that cover abortion to pay for other peoples’ abortions with their own funds. If this new law is intended to prevent people from being complicit in the abortions of others, it is at war with itself.

We share fully the admirable intention of President Obama expressed in his pending Executive Order, where he states, “it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.” However, the fact that an Executive Order is necessary to clarify the legislation points to deficiencies in the statute itself. We do not understand how an Executive Order, no matter how well intentioned, can substitute for statutory provisions.

The statute is also profoundly flawed because it has failed to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protections (both within and beyond the abortion context). As well, many immigrant workers and their families could be left worse off since they will not be allowed to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges to be created, even if they use their own money.

Many in Congress and the Administration, as well as individuals and groups in the Catholic community, have repeatedly insisted that there is no federal funding for abortion in this statute and that strong conscience protection has been assured. Analyses that are being published separately show this not to be the case, which is why we oppose it in its current form. We and many others will follow the government’s implementation of health care reform and will work to ensure that Congress and the Administration live up to the claims that have contributed to its passage. We believe, finally, that new legislation to address its deficiencies will almost certainly be required.

As bishops, we wish to recognize the principled actions of the pro-life Members of Congress from both parties, in the House and the Senate, who have worked courageously to create legislation that respects the principles outlined above. They have often been vilified and have worked against great odds.

As bishops of the Catholic Church, we speak in the name of the Church and for the Catholic faith itself. The Catholic faith is not a partisan agenda, and we take this opportunity to recommit ourselves to working for health care which truly and fully safeguards the life, dignity, conscience and health of all, from the child in the womb to those in their last days on earth.

SOURCE: USCCB

PHOTO SOURCE: Reflections of a Theology Geek

For more on the position of the USCCB, please visit:

• Bishops to House of Representatives: Fix Flaws or Vote No on Health Reform Bill
  
• Health Care for Life and for All
• Include Immigrants on Health Care Reform
• US Bishops Provide Resources Explaining Flaws in Senate Health Care Bill
• Bipartisan Action to Advance Health Care Reform that Protects Human Life and Dignity
  

PHOTO SOURCE: Tom Pringle

The 40 days of Lent which evokes the time that Jesus spent fasting in the desert is a time of conversion and reconciliation. Yet, even as we have passed the mid-point in our Lenten observances, the word “reconciliation” has taken on a new and infelicitous connotation in our secular world. Reconciliation as a “legislative process intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of a filibuster” seems now to be the preferred tactic of the Democratic leadership in Congress to secure passage of what has come to be known as Obamacare. While such reconciliation might bring together the House and Senate health care reform proposals, it will not bring together the nation – for, however, the two bills may be reconciled, serious flaws remain.

Almost everyone regardless of political ideology agrees that there is a need to fix “health care” in our nation: our present system serves too few people and at too high a cost. The U.S. Bishops have consistently advocated for health care reform for more than 40 years. We believe that health care is a basic human right – and we continue to support adequate and affordable health care for all. Health care coverage should not be denied to those in need because of their condition, age, where they come from or when they arrive here.

However, no health care legislation is better than bad health care legislation. And, we fear that the “reconciliation” process will give us bad legislation. Any genuine health care reform must protect human life and dignity from conception to natural death and not threaten it. Those pushing “reconciliation” in order to get health care passed now have opened the door to an expansion of abortion coverage by refusing to incorporate language that would honor conscience protections presently afforded individuals and institutions by the Church, Hyde and Weldon Amendments. Using taxpayers’ money to pay for other people’s abortions would make all citizens complicit in what many regard as a morally heinous act. The so called “pro choice” advocates now argue that Roe v. Wade did not merely declare a “right” to have the government not interfere with a woman’s privacy; they assert the “right” to have the government positively assist in a woman’s having an abortion. Whatever you might call it, a procedure that results in the death of a living human being – whether at the beginning or end of life – is not health care.

The lack of conscience protections in proposed health care legislation – like recent attempts at “redefining” the traditional understanding of marriage – undermines the religious freedom that has been part of the history of this country for more than two centuries. Religious freedom is at the foundation of all of our other freedoms. Cardinal George said in a recent speech: “The founding Fathers understood when they amended the Constitution that the separation of church and state springs from a concept of limited government and favors a public role for churches and other religious bodies in promoting the civic virtues that are vitally necessary in a well functioning democracy.”

The deep moral flaws in the Congressional majority’s health care reform proposal must be corrected through amendments that protect conscience before any attempt to push it through by “reconciliation”. For the continued flourishing of our society, Congress must not dismantle a social order that respects religious freedom and recognizes that government should never stand between the consciences and the religious practice of its citizens and Almighty God. If congressional “reconciliation” gives us expanded abortion coverage and eliminates conscience protection, the results will not be a healthier nation but one more divided and less reconciled than it had been before this debate began.

SOURCE: Diocese of Orlando

PHOTO SOURCE: St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church

The Catholic Bishops of the United States have long and consistently advocated for the reform of the American health care system. Their experience in health care and in Catholic parishes has acquainted them with the anguish of mothers who are unable to afford prenatal care, of families unable to ensure quality care for their children, and of those who cannot obtain insurance because of preexisting conditions.

Throughout the discussion on health care over the last year, the bishops have advocated a bipartisan approach to solving our national health care needs. They have urged that all who are sick, injured or in need receive necessary and appropriate medical assistance, and that no one be deliberately killed through an expansion of federal funding of abortion itself or of insurance plans that cover abortion. These are the provisions of the long standing Hyde amendment, passed annually in every federal bill appropriating funds for health care; and surveys show that this legislation reflects the will of the majority of our fellow citizens. The American people and the Catholic bishops have been promised that, in any final bill, no federal funds would be used for abortion and that the legal status quo would be respected.

However, the bishops were left disappointed and puzzled to learn that the basis for any vote on health care will be the Senate bill passed on Christmas Eve. Notwithstanding the denials and explanations of its supporters, and unlike the bill approved by the House of Representatives in November, the Senate bill deliberately excludes the language of the Hyde amendment. It expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures. In so doing, it forces all of us to become involved in an act that profoundly violates the conscience of many, the deliberate destruction of unwanted members of the human family still waiting to be born.

What do the bishops find so deeply disturbing about the Senate bill? The points at issue can be summarized briefly. The status quo in federal abortion policy, as reflected in the Hyde Amendment, excludes abortion from all health insurance plans receiving federal subsidies. In the Senate bill, there is the provision that only one of the proposed multi-state plans will not cover elective abortions – all other plans (including other multi-state plans) can do so, and receive federal tax credits. This means that individuals or families in complex medical circumstances will likely be forced to choose and contribute to an insurance plan that funds abortions in order to meet their particular health needs.

Further, the Senate bill authorizes and appropriates billions of dollars in new funding outside the scope of the appropriations bills covered by the Hyde amendment and similar provisions. As the bill is written, the new funds it appropriates over the next five years, for Community Health Centers for example (Sec. 10503), will be available by statute for elective abortions, even though the present regulations do conform to the Hyde amendment. Regulations, however, can be changed at will, unless they are governed by statute.

Additionally, no provision in the Senate bill incorporates the longstanding and widely supported protection for conscience regarding abortion as found in the Hyde/Weldon amendment. Moreover, neither the House nor Senate bill contains meaningful conscience protection outside the abortion context. Any final bill, to be fair to all, must retain the accommodation of the full range of religious and moral objections in the provision of health insurance and services that are contained in current law, for both individuals and institutions.

This analysis of the flaws in the legislation is not completely shared by the leaders of the Catholic Health Association. They believe, moreover, that the defects that they do recognize can be corrected after the passage of the final bill. The bishops, however, judge that the flaws are so fundamental that they vitiate the good that the bill intends to promote. Assurances that the moral objections to the legislation can be met only after the bill is passed seem a little like asking us, in Midwestern parlance, to buy a pig in a poke.

What is tragic about this turn of events is that it needn’t have happened. The status quo that has served our national consensus and respected the consciences of all with regard to abortion is the Hyde amendment. The House courageously included an amendment applying the Hyde policy to its Health Care bill passed in November. Its absence in the Senate bill and the resulting impasse are not an accident. Those in the Senate who wanted to purge the Hyde amendment from this national legislation are obstructing the reform of health care.

This is not quibbling over technicalities. The deliberate omission in the Senate Bill of the necessary language that could have taken this moral question off the table and out of play leaves us still looking for a way to meet the President’s and our concern to provide health care for those millions whose primary care physician is now an emergency room doctor. As Pope Benedict told Ambassador to the Holy See Miguel H. Diaz when he presented his credentials as the United States government’s representative to the Holy See, there is “an indissoluble bond between an ethic of life and every other aspect of social ethics.”

Two basic principles, therefore, continue to shape the concerns of the Catholic bishops: health care means taking care of the health needs of all, across the human life span; and the expansion of health care should not involve the expansion of abortion funding and of polices forcing everyone to pay for abortions. Because these principles have not been respected, despite the good that the bill under consideration intends or might achieve, the Catholic bishops regretfully hold that it must be opposed unless and until these serious moral problems are addressed.

SOURCE: Whispers in the Loggia

PHOTO SOURCE: USCCB Media Blog

To Read Cardinal George’s letter, please visit: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-043.shtml

There has been some misunderstanding about what the Stupak Amendment actually does for the health care bill. To help Catholics understand the amendment more thoroughly, the USCCB put out the following statement:

What does the Stupak Amendment do?

1.   It applies to this legislation the longstanding policy of the Hyde Amendment, which has governed other federal health programs for over three decades: No funds authorized or appropriated under this Act (including the “affordability credits” used to help individuals purchase health coverage) may be used for elective abortions, or for benefits packages that include such abortions.

2.   This does not apply to abortions in cases of danger to the mother’s life or rape/incest.

3.   The amendment clearly states that it does not prevent the following:

a.   Any individual whose private coverage is not federally subsidized may purchase (or continue to be covered by) a plan that includes elective abortions, paid for with that individual’s premium dollars. This includes individuals who receive health insurance through their employers, and those who may want to purchase it individually on the new Exchange (where health plans will compete to sell insurance to those who lack employer based coverage).

b.   A private insurer participating in the Exchange may sell a health plan that includes elective abortions to non-subsidized individuals on the Exchange, but then must also offer the same plan without elective abortions (selling only the latter version to federally subsidized purchasers).

c.   Any individual, even someone whose overall health plan was purchased with the help of affordability credits, may use private funds to purchase a supplemental policy covering abortions; any private insurer may sell such a policy.

4.    All contrary provisions in the bill are deleted – provisions allowing the HHS Secretary to include elective abortions in the government-run “public plan”; allowing federal subsidies to support plans that include such abortions; forbidding health plans to “discriminate” between abortion facilities and other health facilities; etc.

For the entire explanation of the Stupak Amendment, please visit: http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/StupakAmendmentFactsheet.pdf

Upon the passage of the House version of the bill, the Senate took up negotiations and debate on its version of the Health Care Reform Bill. However, the Senate bill does not contain the Stupak Amendment. Many pro-life Republican and Democratic Senators are standing by their Christian principles and threatening to vote against a bill that does not contain an special amendment removing federal funding of abortions. (It is about time Senators start standing up for what they believe!!) These pro-life Senators, including Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Robert Casey (D-PA), have proposed an amendment to the Senate bill that would echo the Stupak Amendment in the House bill.

What does the Nelson/Hatch/Casey amendment do?

1.   It applies the longstanding policy of the Hyde amendment to this program: No funds authorized or appropriated under this Act (including the tax credits used to help individuals purchase health coverage) may be used for abortions, or for benefits packages that include abortion.

2.   This does not apply to abortions in cases of danger to the mother’s life or rape/incest.

3.   The amendment clearly states that it does not prevent the following:

a.   Any individual (including someone whose overall health plan was purchased with the help of federal tax credits) may use his or her own private funds to purchase a supplemental policy covering abortions; any private insurer may sell such a policy.

b.   Any individual whose private coverage is not federally subsidized may purchase (or continue to be covered by) a plan that includes elective abortions, paid for with that individual’s premium dollars. This includes individuals who receive health insurance through their employers, as well as those who may want to purchase it individually on the new Exchange where health plans will compete to sell insurance to those who lack employer-based coverage.

c.   A private insurer participating in the Exchange may even sell a health plan that includes elective abortions to non-subsidized individuals on the Exchange, but then must also offer the same plan without elective abortions (selling only the latter version to federally subsidized purchasers).

4.   All contrary provisions in the bill (allowing the HHS Secretary to include elective abortions in the government-run “community health insurance option,” allowing federal subsidies to support plans that include such abortions, etc.) are made consistent with this policy.

5.   A provision forbidding health plans to “discriminate” against health facilities that are willing to perform and provide abortions is deleted. If the public plan, and private plans receiving federal subsidies, will not provide abortions, there is no reason for the government to make them include abortion facilities in their network.

Personally, I usually do not get too involved with the political arena when writing  here on my blog. However, this case is a bit different because it is considering using the typical American’s hard-earned money to fund abortions. The culture of death that is present throughout our country and throughout the world needs to take a hit today! It is time for the people who represent us in Washington to start listening to their constituents. Americans do not want to pay for abortions!!! Please write your Senators and plead with them to vote for the Nelson/Hatch/Casey Amendment.

PHOTO SOURCE: Catholic Shirts