Showing posts with label Health Care Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Health Care Reform. Show all posts

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Dealer to Junkies: "Don't Abandon Health Care"

Unelected Bishops aren't satisfied with soft-socialism, they're still bent on the ineffective the highly centralized and failed economic practices of 1848-1992. Despite the best efforts of their DNC masters, the USCCB has failed to push the Socialist agenda yet again. The problem is, however, is that they are using the spiritual capital of the Catholic Church in the United States to push the socialist agendas of others who are not friendly to the Catholic Church. Still, these bemitred denizens of heterodoxy at the USCCB are not willing to give up so easily, they are haranguing their socialist colleagues for yet another go at the freedom and liberty not only of Holy Mother Church, but also the American taxpayer.

January 27, 2010

Months after threatening to oppose the health care overhaul over abortion – and one week after the election of a 41st Republican senator cost the Democrats their filibuster-proof majority, casting passage into doubt – Catholic bishops now are urging Congress against dropping the project.

“The health care debate, with all its political and ideological conflict, seems to have lost its central moral focus and policy priority, which is to ensure that affordable, quality, life-giving care is available to all,” Cardinal Daniel DiDinardo and bishops William F. Murphy and John Wester, writing on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, say in a letter sent to members of Congress this week. “Now is not the time to abandon this task, but rather to set aside partisan divisions and special interest pressures to find ways to enact genuine reform. Although political contexts have changed, the moral and policy failure that leaves tens of millions of our sisters and brothers without access to health care still remains.”

The bishops have advocated consistently for broadening access to health care, but oppose abortion. In November, the conference took an active role in lobbying for an amendment to the House version of the health care overhaul to prohibit taxpayer subsidies for insurance plans that cover the procedure.

Related Articles:

Catholic Bishops Pursuing Liberal Policy Advocating Socialized Medicine.

More USCCB advocating Socialism

USCCB Media Blog

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Virginians Rebel against Obamacare


Three Virginia Catholics are leading the resistance against the encroaching power of the Obama White House.
As reported in the Washington Post, legislation has been introduced to curb federal power over health insurance, interstate commerce, and gun regulation. Three of the leaders behind this effort are pro-life Catholics: Robert G. Marshall, a delegate to the Virginia legislature; Attorney General-Elect Ken Cuccinelli; and Gov. Robert McDonnell. (It's something of a historical irony that Catholics have risen to such prominence in a state which sought to exclude the Catholic faith at its founding.)

Read further....

Monday, December 28, 2009

CHA Denies Spilt with Bishops on Abortion

Despite previous reports of disengagement with the USCCB at the New York Times on Healthcare Reform with respect to Abortion, the head of CHA, Sister Keehan, insists that they are fully behind the US Bishop's socialist agenda and its tentative Prolife position.

'Not a shred of disagreement' between CHA, bishops on health reform

By Nancy Frazier O'Brien
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Despite a New York Times report to the contrary, the Catholic Health Association and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are working together to achieve health reform legislation that does not expand federal funding of abortion, according to the CHA president and CEO.

Sister Carol Keehan, a Daughter of Charity, told Catholic News Service in a telephone interview Dec. 28 that her organization has never wavered in its commitment to health care that protects "from conception to natural death," as outlined in the CHA document, "Our Vision for U.S. Health Care."

She disputed a report in The New York Times Dec. 26 that a recent CHA statement on Senate negotiations over abortion funding in health reform legislation represented a split with the bishops.

"There is not a shred of disagreement between CHA and the bishops," Sister Carol said. "We believe there is a great possibility and probability that in conference committee we can work toward a solution that will prevent federal funding of abortion."

She said the CHA, which represents more than 600 Catholic hospitals in the U.S., "brings a lot of expertise with funding structures in the marketplace" to the debate and hopes to "bring that to bear" during the conference committee's work.

Shortly before the Senate approved its version of health reform legislation early Dec. 24, the chairmen of three USCCB committees said the bill should not be approved "without incorporating essential changes to ensure" that it "truly protects the life, dignity, consciences and health of all."

In a letter sent late Dec. 22, about 36 hours before the Senate's 60-39 vote along party lines, the USCCB leaders pledged continued efforts to incorporate needed changes during the work of the House-Senate conference committee.

"For many months, our bishops' conference has worked with members of Congress, the administration and others to fashion health care reform legislation that truly protects the life, dignity, health and consciences of all," said the letter signed by Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston and Bishops William F. Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., and John C. Wester of Salt Lake City.

The three chair the USCCB committees on Pro-Life Activities, on Domestic Justice and Human Development and on Migration, respectively.

"We regret to say that in all the areas of our moral concern, the Senate health care reform bill is deficient," the three chairmen added.

The bishops said their biggest problem with the Senate bill was its treatment of abortion funding, which "not only falls short of the House's standard but violates long-standing precedent in all other federal health programs."

In addition to not maintaining the legal status quo on abortion funding that has been supported by President Barack Obama and by the majority of Americans in many polls, the abortion provisions in the manager's amendment to the Senate bill would require purchasers of some health insurance plans "to pay for other people's abortions in a very direct and explicit way," the USCCB letter said.

"There is no provision for individuals to opt out of this abortion payment in federally subsidized plans, so people will be required by law to pay for other people's abortions," it added.

The Senate bill also fails to include provisions to prevent "discrimination against health care providers that decline involvement in abortion" and would not protect the rights of Catholic and other institutions "to provide and purchase health coverage consistent with their moral and religious convictions on other procedures," the chairmen said.

The letter also urged changes in the Senate bill's provisions barring undocumented immigrants from purchasing health insurance from an exchange with their own money and banning legal immigrants from federal health benefit programs for five years.

Sister Carol said Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick based his Dec. 26 story on a Dec. 17 CHA statement which noted that CHA had not reviewed the language of various amendments on the table at the time but was "encouraged by recent deliberations and the outline" Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., was developing.

At that point, "I felt they were making progress and were getting where we needed to be," she said.

"I understand that it doesn't make a good story to say (CHA and the USCCB) are working together," Sister Carol added. "But it would have been an honest story."

In an earlier statement, Cardinal DiNardo said the USCCB would continue to oppose the Senate legislation "unless and until" it is amended to "comply with long-standing Hyde restrictions on federal funding of elective abortions and health plans that include them."

The Hyde amendment prohibits federal funding of abortion except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the woman's life.

On abortion, the USCCB had backed a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and others. Similar to a House-passed measure sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., the amendment would have incorporated the Hyde amendment protections into the health reform bill.

When the Senate tabled Nelson's amendment in a 54-45 vote Dec. 8, Cardinal Francis E. George of Chicago, USCCB president, and the three USCCB chairmen called it "a grave mistake and a serious blow to genuine health reform."

Nelson joined with the 57 other Senate Democrats and two independents in voting Dec. 19 to end debate on the health reform legislation, cutting off a Republican filibuster.

Nelson told the Lincoln Journal Star Dec. 23 that he "did not compromise my pro-life principles" by supporting the Senate language on abortion funding. "We just found different language that will work," he added.

Link to original...

Is the Left Anti-Semitic After All?

Well, the left hates Joey Liberman (I), so it must be anti-semitic, because it hates Israel. Does the knife cut both ways? Never before has supporting Israel been so much fun, because you get to trash two faulty ideologies at once.

The Examener

Ruminations, December 27, 2009

Health insurance lives saved vs. lives lost
The Institute of Medicine, the health branch of the National Academy of Sciences, issued an analysis that concluded 22,000 lives were lost in 2006 due to a lack of health insurance. Many proponents of the new health care proposals are projecting their figures across 10 years and estimating that the new Congressional health care bill will save, conservatively, 150,000 lives over 10 years.

Although this analysis is speculative, it is an interesting and worthwhile exercise to examine the potential effect of health insurance on longevity. Rather than focusing on the dollars and cents side of the health care debate, perhaps adding an additional balance sheet focusing on lives would be worthwhile.

Saving 22,000 lives per year is based upon 30 million of people who are currently uninsured obtaining insurance and thus being able to afford to see their doctors once a year. If 30 million more people will go to their doctor once a year and, according to some estimates, a doctor and an assistant (nurse, physician’s assistant, or another doctor, etc) can see and examine 2,000 people per year (one visit per person). That means we’ll need 30,000 new medical professionals to see 30 million people. Where will they come from? They won’t materialize from thin air. With current staffing levels, regardless of insurance, we won’t have enough medical professionals to see these people. So maybe, unless or until we can expand our medical professionals, the 30 million people currently uninsured still won’t be able to see a doctor and 22,000 lives we estimated that would be saved will be lost anyway.

While accepting the estimate of 22,000 lives saved in one year, let’s consider the number of lives that the new health care bill may cost. For instance, won’t cutting nearly $500 billion from Medicare over 10 years have an adverse affect on the life spans of 46 million seniors? That’s an average cut of $10,000 per person over 10 years. It seems that by reducing health care by that amount, for a group whose earning power is limited and whose advancing years makes their health precarious enough without the cuts, will contribute to the lives lost count. Will it contribute to the premature death of more than 150,000 over ten years? Could be.

And, while we are on the subject of saving lives, there is no doubt that American medical innovation over the last decades has saved millions of lives. In fact, it is so advanced and superior, that, according to Deloitte & Touche, last year 400,000 people came from foreign lands to get health care in the United States. They came from all over including places such as Canada and Great Britain, where national health care is provided gratis. Why did they come? Not to save money, that’s for sure. They came because they wanted innovative health care that was unavailable in their home countries. Many, including those with diverse political perspectives as liberal former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich and conservative Fox commentator John Stossel, believe that a new health care system will not provide new innovations and, consequently it may cause a number of premature deaths that innovation could have saved.

So, on balance, will the new health care bill in Congress save lives? Maybe not.

Lieberman and anti-Semitism
The last two members of the Democratic caucus fell into line last week and supported the Democrats health care bill. Joe Lieberman (I, CT) and Ben Nelson (D, NE) voted to end debate on the bill and proceed towards its passage.

The left has been almost apoplectic on the about Joe Lieberman (I, CT), who threatened to join Republicans and filibuster the Senate Health Care bill. But when Lieberman’s objections to the “public option” and to the provision to allow people under 65 to apply for Medicare were met, he withdrew his filibuster threat and supported the bill. Lieberman had held out on principle. And by mollifying Lieberman, the Democrats were able to secure his support. But the left still treats him as a traitor.

Ben Nelson (D, NE), the last hold out, came back to the party-line when he was offered a $100 million subsidy for his Nebraska voters and tax breaks for Nebraska insurance companies. After he came back, the left treated him like a hero.

You can agree or disagree with Nelson and Lieberman but can you hold a mercenary in higher regard than a man who stands on principle?

It doesn’t seem so for many of the left. Rosa DeLauro (D, CT) says, “I'll say it flat out, I think he [Lieberman] ought to be recalled." has raised one million dollars so that when Lieberman “comes up for re-election, we'll make sure we send him home for good.” Michael Moore demands that Connecticut recall Lieberman and wants to punish Connecticut for electing Lieberman by means of a boycott. MSNBC news commentator Keith Obermann said that Lieberman was “embarrassing humanity.” And the Susan G. Komen breast cancer foundation has been pressured to sever relationship with Lieberman’s wife, Hadassah.

Is there something else at work here – something other than political opposition? When people oppose President Barack Obama, some of Obama’s supporters are quick to state or imply that the reason for the opposition to Obama is racism. Could one conclude that the reason for the strong opposition to Lieberman is anti-Semitism?

First of all, let’s set aside the lunatic fringe that will always be with us. There is no doubt that there is a small group of people who don’t like Lieberman because he is a Jew – just as there exists a small group of people who don’t like Obama because he is black. Small fringe groups, however outrageous their beliefs, are of little concern; when the group gets large or influential, that’s when it bears watching.

In Lieberman’s case, the left has other reasons to dislike him. In 2006, Lieberman returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq and declared the war not only winnable but worth fighting. This infuriated the left and, at the Connecticut Democratic state Convention, instead of nominating the incumbent Lieberman, anti-war candidate Ned Lamont was nominated for senator. Lieberman then had the effrontery, in the eyes of the left, to run for senator as an independent against a party-line Democrat – and he won.

In 2008, Lieberman spoke at the Republican National Convention and endorsed Republican John McCain.

While many on the left urge rapprochement with Cuba, Lieberman has remained strongly anti-Castro.

And, while a significant portion of the American left leans toward Palestine in the Israeli-Palestinian controversy, Lieberman is strongly pro-Israel.

So the resentment of Lieberman for opposing the party orthodoxy has been building. Was the Health Care kerfuffle the tipping point? Is it a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss Lieberman detractors as anti-Semites? Let’s explore that notion.

There still is a remnant of anti-Semitism in the United States and some of it by seemingly responsible public figures and politicians who should know better. Former Senator Fritz Hollings (D, SC), for example, implied that President Bush initiated the war on terror in order to appease Jews.

While anti-Semitism in the United States is not at the levels it had been in the 1930s, it still exists. In November 2005, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a Campus Anti-Semitism briefing report ( that said, “Indeed, anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism flourish on college campuses because of the energetic focus of a determined minority and their willingness to dedicate themselves to this cause.” If that was and is the case, we don’t need to wonder that the attitudes of people who have been subjected to academic precepts of anti-Semitism made to sound intellectual will become anti-Semites themselves.

But according to the Commission, it is a small group of determined activists that foment anti-Semitism on campus. And who is it that leads political groups? Small groups of determined activists.

One of the Commission’s major findings is that “The assault on Jewish nationalism is embedded in the ideology of the left” and that "Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism." As was pointed out above, Lieberman strongly supports Israel.

Former Soviet dissident and Israeli government official Natan Sharansky stated that “One of the major difficulties in grappling with the new anti-Semitism is the ease with which it can be denied. Unlike in the past, post-modern anti-Semitism no longer exclusively involves such phenomena as violence against the Jews, sporting swastikas and burning synagogues. While these phenomena do indeed exist and are even increasing, especially in Europe, today they form only part of the problem.”

So, is opposition to Lieberman anti-Semitism camouflaged as politics or is it legitimate political opposition? It’s probably both. There is no doubt Lieberman has, overall, a liberal voting record. But liberal-versus-conservative voting records are hard to measure; the big issues for the left over the past year have been the war in Iraq, the presidential election and health care. Lieberman has, at times, opposed the left on all three.

Just as Lieberman has taken principled stands to oppose the left, it is fair to say that many on the left are taking principled stands in opposing Lieberman. Some of that opposition may be anti-Semitism camouflaged in principle and some, when it is expressed with venom and rancor, may not be camouflaged but blatant anti-Semitism.

The conclusion? It’s worrisome.

Link to original...

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Catholic Hospitals Support Senate Passage of Healthcare Reform

WASHINGTON — In an apparent split with Roman Catholic bishops over the abortion-financing provisions of the proposed health care overhaul, the nation’s Catholic hospitals have signaled that they back the Senate’s compromise on the issue, raising hopes of breaking an impasse in Congress and stirring controversy within the church.

Recent developments on the struggle over health care with background, analysis, timelines and earlier events from and Google.

The Senate bill, approved Thursday morning, allows any state to bar the use of federal subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortion and requires insurers in other states to divide subsidy money into separate accounts so that only dollars from private premiums would be used to pay for abortions.

Just days before the bill passed, the Catholic Health Association, which represents hundreds of Catholic hospitals across the country, said in a statement that it was “encouraged” and “increasingly confident” that such a compromise “can achieve the objective of no federal funding for abortion.” An umbrella group for nuns followed its lead.

Link to originals...

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Quisling USCCB Mounts Another Last Ditch Defense

The Bishops aren't too happy that a lot of Marxist legistlation isn't going to be passed into law, but they are, to be fair, keen on insuring that none of this mostly favoured legislation includes funding for abortion. Considering their resistance to the Congressional Bill, it's hard to believe that their resistance against abortion funding wasn't half-hearted like the French General Staff's too deliberate ineptitude in facing the Germans in 1940. Sure, individual units of Frenchmen fought bravely against the invading Germans, but Command Headquarters was largely blind and stuck in a hermetic enclosure from the rest of its armies owing to a complete lack of effectivc communication with its subordinate units; France in 1940, like American Catholicism, is doomed to political irrelavence and defeat.

But we're Catholics, we're used to being murdered by our enemies and betrayed by our shepherds. We should thank God for these tribulations and these shepherds. They and the surrounding irreligion and illusory freedoms give us much opportunity to proove our love of God.

Read the USCCB letter, it'll be dead letter before long, possibly a historical document choronicling the decline and fall of American Catholicism. What an ugly logo.

Here's a blog writing about this. He doesn't get it.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Abortion Continues to be a Dividing Issue

Wall Street Journal

The Senate nudged its health bill toward tighter restrictions on abortion coverage, a change that left advocates on both sides of the issue unsatisfied.

Under a deal with Sen. Ben Nelson, women who receive a new tax credit to buy insurance would write a separate check with their own money for abortion coverage, and states would explicitly have the option of barring such coverage from plans sold on new insurance exchanges. However, the language is less sweeping than that adopted by the House in November, which abortion-rights groups interpreted as the most significant setback in Congress for their cause in many years.

As it did in the House, abortion threatened to sink the health-care bill at the last minute in the Senate. Mr. Nelson, an antiabortion Democrat, vowed to withhold his vote unless the bill included more stringent requirements to ensure no federal money goes toward paying for abortion.

Link to orignal...

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Reputedly Catholic Organizations Support Casey Proposal

Bob Casey receives endorsement from the usual suspects who lay claim to a Catholic identity that benefits them with their donors and alumni, but do not, as Cardinal DiNardo says, amount to rejecting federal funding for abortion.

Washington D.C., Dec 18, 2009 / 06:56 pm (CNA).- Sen. Bob Casey's office released a statement to CNA on Friday afternoon claiming that the senator's abortion compromise has received “widespread praise” from health groups and faith leaders around the country. However, the U.S. bishops' head of pro-life issues, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, charged that Casey's language does not address the fact that the Senate bill still fails to comply with “longstanding Hyde restrictions on federal funding of elective abortions.”

Following the defeat of the Nelson Amendment in the Senate, Sen. Casey (D-Penn.), who helped co-sponsor it, sent a new compromise proposal to Sen. Nelson that would hopefully garner enough votes to pass the Senate.

After reviewing the Casey proposal, Nelson rejected the language, saying that it “does not yet ensure that a longstanding federal standard barring public funding of abortion would be maintained in the Senate health care bill the Senate has been debating this month.”

Speaking in a press release on Friday, Sen. Casey underscored that “It is critical to maintain restrictions on federal funding of abortion. But we must also focus on the needs of vulnerable pregnant women and do all we can to assist them at a time when they may find themselves alone and without support.”


The following is a list of individuals who support the Casey proposal:

Despite the fact that no one has actually seen the proposed language of the compromise, Sen. Casey's office released a list of religious groups who have come forward in support of the illusory language. The list includes U.S. Ambassador to Malta Douglas Kmiec, Sr. Simone Campbell of NETWORK, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, the Catholic Health Association and professors from Boston College, Fordham University, Marquette University, the University of Dayton, the Catholic University of America and the University of Notre Dame

Link to original...

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Dean Moves to Kill Obamacare

The enemy of your enemy is your friend. God has a sense of irony. The Bishops won't defeat the bill, but a Godless socialist will.

WASHINGTON – Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean argued Wednesday that the health care overhaul bill taking shape in the Senate further empowers private insurers at the expense of consumer choice.

"You will be forced to buy insurance. If you don't, you'll pay a fine," said Dean, a physician. "It's an insurance company bailout." Interviewed on ABC's "Good Morning America," he said the bill has some good provisions, "but there has to be a line beyond which you think the bill is bad for the country."

"This is an insurance company's dream," the former Democratic presidential candidate said. "This is the Washington scramble, and it's a shame."

Dean asserted that the Senate's health care bill would not prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions and he also said it would allow the industry to charge older people far more than others for premiums.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., a prominent House liberal, protested the absence of any government-run insurance option in the Senate bill.

"We can't let the perfect be enemy of the good," Weiner said on CBS' "Early Show," "but we are reaching a tipping point."

When House and Senate negotiators go to conference to work out a compromise bill, Weiner said, "We should move away from some of the things the Senate has done and move back to where the House is. You need to contain cost. You do that with a public option."

(This version CORRECTS SUBS 2nd graf, deleting word 'now' to correct Dean quote.)

Link to original...

Monday, December 14, 2009

Fake Catholic Groups Working Overtime for Healthcare Bll


It's sad to report, but report we must: The same fake Catholic groups that helped President Barack Obama get elected have rallied to the cause of the health-care bill, abortion funding and all. As reported by, Catholics United (CU) and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG) are warning Catholics not to get too hung up on things like federal funding of abortion.

Interviewed by the Christian Science Monitor, CU president Chris Korzen commented, "The wrong thing would be for anyone to be so firmly entrenched in their positions on federal funding of abortion that they're not willing to come to the table and talk about a compromise."

Victoria Kovari, the interim president of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, claimed, "We share all the bishops' concerns," adding that the "difference is [our] feeling that we would be morally remiss if we walked away from all of the health care [reform]. We have to take seriously our call to be about what's good for the whole human family."

In other words, pass the health-care bill, even if it contains abortion funding. This is precisely the kind of proportionalist reasoning that I fear many Catholics are using to brush aside concerns about abortion funding: The evil of abortion, those like Korzen and Kovari argue, is offset by the many benefits of health-care reform.

Catholic teaching explicitly rejects such self-justifying tactics (see Veritatis Splendor 75), and the U.S. bishops have been unwavering on this point. As Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the USCCB Pro-Life Secretariat, remarks in the same CSM article, "There are moral absolutes that we can't get beyond."

Links to original...

Saturday, December 5, 2009

The Bishops' Poor Case for Healthcare Reform

If and we mean, if, the Bishops have a moral case against Health Care Reform, they certainly haven't done a very good job of making it.

The ultimate constraint that we all face is knowledge -- what we know and don't know. The knowledge problem is pervasive and by no means trivial as hinted at by just a few examples. You've purchased a house. Was it the best deal you could have gotten? Was there some other house you could have purchased that 10 years later would not have needed extensive repairs or was in a community with more likeable neighbors and a better environment for your children? What about the person you married? Was there another person who would have made for a more pleasing spouse? Though these are important questions, the most intelligent answer you can give to all of them is: "I don't know."

Read further...

Thursday, December 3, 2009

It's Socialism as Usual in Minnesota

Archbishop Nienstedt did mention subsidiarity in his brief interview today on MPR, but what he's asking for, ala Democratic Party, amounts to very direct government interference and more wealth confiscation on the part of the government. Insisting that the healthcare bill include "subsidiarity", the Archbishop suggested that it "move authority down to the lowest level," but he didn't elaborate on how increased centralization and wealth confiscation will involve subsidiarity, or how the mission of the Church to provide healthcare as She has in the past will not be hindered by this legislation.

As far as we know now, the Archbishop is still permitting a Marxist Jesuit to speak at Our Lady of Grace Parish in Edina, contrary to his own Guidelines regarding Catholic speakers.

by Tom Crann, Minnesota Public Radio,
Madeleine Baran, Minnesota Public Radio
December 3, 2009

St. Paul, Minn. — Archbishop John Nienstedt reiterated the Catholic Church's opposition to any health care reform bill that would allow abortion coverage, in an interview with MPR's All Things Considered on Thursday.

Nienstedt, the archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis, called health care "essential for the human life and dignity of every person," [Even if we have to extort the money from taxpayers] but said the Catholic Church will not support health care legislation unless it meets specific church demands.

"I believe that health care reform is necessary," said Nienstedt. "I'm all in favor of that. The question is, What kind of health care do we want as a nation? And any health care program that would include the killing of the unborn is unacceptable."

Nienstedt said that parishioners should oppose any bill that allows abortion or euthanasia coverage, rations care for the elderly, or lacks a "conscience clause" to allow medical providers to opt out of performing abortions or other procedures they consider immoral.

The Catholic Church has attracted controversy for its lobbying efforts in the health care debate, particularly for its efforts to ban abortion coverage in public option insurance plans.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter to U.S. senators in November urging lawmakers to oppose abortion coverage, provide coverage for illegal immigrants and expand coverage for low-income Americans.

"I don't see that as political muscle," Nienstedt said. "I think that's the moral voice of the church speaking."

Link to original...

Don't forget to call the coordinator of Jesuit Kevin Burke's retreat, Terri Griep, here's her social justice website.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Bishops Should Fight Obamacare With All Their Might

The first entry comes from Cardinal Rigali and shows some really decisive leadership.

The other entry by Father Robert Sirico at last asks the right questions and puts the social teachings of the Church in relation to her traditional role as the true source of Charity in her hospitals, orphanages, schools and soup kitchens. She has always fed and clothed the poor and this legistlation threatens what.

( - A top Roman Catholic cardinal told that there is “no way” Catholic members of Congress can support the Senate health care reform bill as long as it includes a provision that allows tax dollars to go to insurance plans that cover abortion.

At the National Press Club on Nov. 20, asked Cardinal Justin Rigali, the archbishop of Philadelphia: “The Senate health care bill that Majority Leader Reid released this week permits tax dollars to go to insurance plans which cover abortion. And my question is: Would it be a mortal sin for a Catholic member of Congress to vote for this bill knowing that this provision is in it?”

Read further...



Posted by Rev. Robert Sirico

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

As the health care debate moves to the U.S. Senate, much of the focus has been on how the Catholic bishops’ support of the amendment by U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, the Menominee Democrat, to prohibit the use of tax dollars to fund abortion was a major victory for the pro-life side. The bishops urged the House of Representatives, through local parishes and in a Nov. 6 letter, to ensure that “needed health care reform legislation truly protects the life, dignity, health and consciences of all.”

All people of good will, all those who value human life and dignity, should cheer this development.

But there’s more to this health care juggernaut that should give us reason to oppose it in its current form. We should first be concerned with the vast expansion of government reach into the private lives of millions of Americans.

This “reform” will create a system that will put bureaucrats in charge of personal health care decisions — not doctors. It will give the federal government an avenue to nationalize more than 15 percent of the U.S. economy, putting bureaucrats and elected officials in the role of manager and regulator — much as we’ve seen in banking and automobiles.

Amazingly, with the push for a $1 trillion-plus health care package and the attendant debt, we may soon see Canada with lower government spending (as a percent of gross domestic product) on heath care than the United States. All this, too, is a threat to human dignity.

Read further...

Related articles:

Recent news about the Baltimore Conference in Summary.

Bishop Bruskewitz mildly criticizes Bishop Morin regarding the CCHD.

Bishop Morin Equivocates about CCHD.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Bacus Amendment provides $375 million for Sex-Ed

Catholic Family News

375 Million for Classroom Sex Instruction in Senate “Health Care Reform Bill” – SIECUS and Other Anti-life/Homosexual Groups Promoting “The Personal Responsibility Education for Adulthood Training” [Senate] and the Healthy Teen Initiative [House] Amendments.

Link to article...

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Kennedy gets Huffy with Bishop Tobin

Like an adolescent with a drug problem confronted by his parents, Patrick Kennedy says, "he won't even dignifiy that with an answer", referring to Bishop Tobin's stern lecture earlier this week. Considering the Kennedy clan's support for homo-perversion in US Schools, his hostillity becomes more understandable and his claims to be Catholic in good standing very dubious indeed. The family has in the past also put its loyalty to the United States on the shelf for some political support from the Soviet Union. What a family.

Providence, RI ( -- Rep. Patrick Kennedy is swinging back at his Catholic bishop, who rebuked him for comments he made saying the Catholic Church is not pro-life because it opposes the health care bills over abortion funding. Bishop Thomas Tobin also criticized Kennedy for canceling a meeting to discuss the situation.

When Kennedy canceled, Bishop Tobin decided to write a letter for the local Catholic newspaper saying Kennedy's pro-abortion stance puts him at odds with the Catholic Church.

Kennedy said he was "not going to dignify with an answer" Tobin's assessment that Kennedy could not be a good Catholic and still support abortion.

In remarks to the Providence Journal newspaper, he called those comments "unfortunate," and said, "I'm not going to engage [in] this anymore."

He also said he found it "very disconcerting" that Bishop Tobin would not meet with him to have a private discussion of his pro-abortion views and Catholic faith, even though it appears Kennedy is the one to have postponed their planned meeting.

Kennedy tells the newspaper that he canceled the meeting because Tobin would not promise to keep any discussion of his views private.

"I had initially agreed to a meeting with him [Thursday], provided we would not debate this in public in terms of my personal faith, but unfortunately, he hasn't kept to that agreement, and that's very disconcerting to me," the congressman claimed.

Michael Guilfoyle, spokesman for the diocese, told the Journal that the meeting was postponed "by mutual agreement," but said Bishop Tobin would still welcome Kennedy.

"The bishop's schedule is still free on Thursday if the congressman would like to have that personal and pastoral meeting," he said.

Read entire...

Saturday, November 7, 2009

USCCB Endorses still more Liberal Social Change

Some are insisting that the USCCB's unfortunate love affair with collectivism is an example of Bishops being incapable of talking outside of spiritual affairs. If they actually referred to Church teachings on subsidiarity and considered the cancerous relationship they maintain as lapdogs of collectivism and the price to integrity they pay when they align themselves with liberal platforms, no doubt, they'd be well within the bounds of their spiritual and temporal authority. No doubt, many of the Bishops do appeal to a kind of backwater, Jim Jones style spirituality when they support Democratic National Committee talking points.

It's fair to say that the USCCB is in many respects politically liberal and that they've always failed to maintain an independent voice with respect to economics and politics, as when they drafted a letter against Nuclear Armament with the now disgraced perjuring embezzler Archbishop Rembert Weakland and Cardinal Bernardin or when earlier in the century, the liberal Archbishop Ireland supported American Imperialism in the Spanish American War and the temperance movement. This demonstrates a clear history [George Weigel, Wanderer] of the Catholic hierarchy in the United States historical committment to liberalism in opposition to actual Church teaching in this regard.

The opposition of the Bishops to so-called Health care Reform has hinged primarily upon the issue Abortion, and now, with some last minute concessions by their Democratic masters, many of them will acquiesce and endorse the rest of the bill. Of course, the concessions will be ineffective in the long run and will no-doubt include concerns about the health and welfare of the mother and cases of rape or incest.

The American Catholic leadership, which has always had a subservient role to American Government, have a long way to go before they cut the purse strings that make them little more than puppets of an increasingly national Catholic Church.

See Bishops Back Abortion Compromise...

According to Lifesite News, Archbishop Rigali has only praised the Stupchak amendment to the Bill, disincluding abortion coverage and supporting the unborn. However, the Secretary of the USCCB for pro-life secretariat says he still insists that they are for "Healthcare Reform".

Link here...

Arms merchant's wife, Nancy Lugosi-Pelosi wants access to your Children

Most people wouldn't trust this woman to watch their children. Don't allow the government to turn your community into a medical petri dish.

During the 90s, Harvard Medical School was using the Austian National Health Service as a source of medical experiments for proceedures as part of a study to get them approved in the United States; some patients lived, others died.

This is the kind of high-handed contempt that awaits us at the hands of mad scientists looking to patent new proceedures and make some lucre.

Link to Catholic Family News...