It isn’t over – the ball just changed possession:
If the Freedom of Choice Act passes Congress, and that’s a big if, Obama has promised to sign it the second it hits his desk. (Here he is at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event in 2007, vowing, “The first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing I’d do.”) Though it’s often referred to as a mere codification of Roe, FOCA, as currently drafted, actually goes well beyond that: According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn’t stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn’t be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute “material cooperation with an intrinsic evil.”
That’s about one-third of the country’s hospital capacity, much of it located in places that don’t get a lot of for-profit health care. There’s nobody standing in line to fill the gap they’d leave behind. And the Catholic church, for all its faults, is notoriously resistant to bullying by secular powers. They answer to a higher power, and that.
Freedom of choice: It cuts both ways.
People routinely make promises they know they can’t keep in order to grasp the ring. In the long run, it’s probably unlikely that the feds will poke their nose in the business of a private association performing a public good. And even if they did, the odds that SCOTUS will allow this particular emanation into the penumbra are vanishingly small, at least for a few years.
The P-E will probably demonstrate sincere attempts to fight the good fight, accept defeat gracefully and move on to higher priority issues.
But oxen will be gored.
“Without public funds, these health centers couldn’t stay open….That’s about one-third of the country’s hospital capacity…”
Lex, haven’t YOU figured it out yet??? We WILL HAVE PUBLICLY PROVIDED UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE! And if we have to shut EVERY PRIVATE hospital in the U.S. to do it, so be it.
I see this as an end-round play to force the universal health care agenda. Take away the hospitals and suddenly, oh, my! There are not enough health centers for people. My goodness, we’ll just have to do something about that. So the gubmint will just buy up (or seize under eminent domain) all those closed private institutions, and well, they need funding. So your obliging congress steps up an voila! Public funded health care. But wait, there’s more! Since you need DOCTORS to go along with HOSPITALS, we’ll just make it so that the local medical staff MUST accept out health care system or they don’t have hospital privileges and without that, why go see them? Have to go see the U.S. doctor to get a procedure so might as well skip the lamed provider. They opt in or get out of the profession.
Ahhh, a conspiratorial mind can think of all sorts of reasons to push Roe-v-Wade agenda as a method to achieve the ultimate goal: control of every facet of life, cradle to grave. The term for that deception escapes me at the minute….
Lex,
I recently discussed this very issue with a Monsignor of some long acquaintance. His view is that the Church would, indeed, close it all. Nothing would be sold. The doors would be locked, staff paid their severance packages, and property taxes paid. What medical durable goods could be salvaged would be used overseas in other Catholic Medical services, especially in Africa and India. Other, larger items such as CAT & MRI machines would be shipped to other countries where the onerous burden of acquiescing to state-ordered abortions would not be present.
All in all, I believe it to be a fair and thoughtful choice. After all, the community has chosen the political course it wishes, and no little number of Cafeteria Catholics supported the new Messiah. They made their choices and now must accept the results of those votes.
Elections have consequences. It’s nice to see some folks who still understand that.
I would like to think that His Oneness will blink first, but I am not putting any money down on the issue.
JoeC,
“Bait & Switch”.
Sears used to be famous for this tactic. As did General Motors.
I wonder how many of the younguns who voted for the President-Elect because he was “cool” are going to still think him so once they get to experience the joys of socialistic healthcare firsthand.
JoeC: If it comes to seeing a Federal clock-doc or going without, I hope nobody here gets sick anytime soon. Especially sick after hours – see UK and Japan, for that. “Hospital’s closed, it’s 5:01 so come back tomorrow” having such a wonderful ring and all.
Heck, I hope I don’t get sick in general if this passes – anyone want to take a bet on whether the better (more experienced) docs we have now take a long look at an early retirement? Beauty of it is, pay off the better docs in hospitals – the ones who can administer new treatments and speed their availability – and you may as well write an EO to kill off the new biotech sector too. So much for that being the next area where the US dominates, say nothing of it pulling us out of the current funk.
It’s easy — just let the doctors decide not to perform that particular procedure, and refer the patient to the Fed-funded clinic that does.
End of Problem.
South Dakota has tackled this problem a few times in the past. No doctors here want to perform an abortion, so Planed Parenthood flies a couple of docs from Minnesota in to do it. Once a week. In one office. Statewide.
South Dakota has also placed referendums on the ballot that would outlaw abortion, but they’ve failed every time. Folks want the option, for others, but don’t want to be a part of it.
Can’t see where Catholic hospitals can’t use the same tactic, referring that particular bit of, um, medicine to another resource.
After all, nothing in law says you *have* to do something you are morally against, you merely need to refer to another who will.
Which is going to get interesting when we’ve a nationalized health care plan, since doctors will be working essentially for the government and not their own practice. How soon until getting paid means compromising your morals?
I jest — politicians know nothing but that status, they couldn’t fathom another way.
– Max
Max,
Catholic hospitals would not refer the problem down the street. Maybe some Dr’s would, but not the Church. They will close if forced.
Regarding National Health Care, how fast the public forgets the whole Walter Reed debacle and govt healthcare for our nations finest. If they don’t take care of vets, well, so help you if you are J Q Public.
My MD Father in Law who immigrated from Great Britain asked what system I wanted to be treated under. One that saves money by my death or one that loses money by my death?
Lex,
Here in Taxachussets our legislator decided that all adoption agencies would be required to place children with same sex couples. When the Church declared that they would shut down all their adoption services if they were not granted an exemption, our illustrious governor decided they were bluffing.
They were not, and the kids paid the price.
The FOCA presents a much more serious issue, and I have no doubt that the course described in AW1 Tim’s comment will be followed.
eh….. that should be “legislature” of course (or the colloquial “crooks on Beacon Hill”).
I would love to see all of those who yammer endlessly about the need for “Universal Health Care” or “National Health Care” or whatever the nomme d’jour is, to spend a year in the VA Health Care System. I have. Many years in fact.
My own experience has been thus: I have had the finest doctors and medical treatment, and amazing care from nurses and staff while hospitalized.
On the flip side, I have been driven to utter frustration by the mind-numbing paperwork and layers of administration required for even the simplest of things. The Formulary is restricted, and certain medications, seen generally in civilian health care, are unavailable. Why that is so I haven’t been able to get an answer for. However, it means that, if you require a certain medication, and the VA doesn;t stock it, you can ask for a waiver from them, but that usually takes weeks to decide upon. In the meantime, you wait. If it’s denied, you have to either pay for it out of pocket through a local pharmacy (the VA will give you the prescription, they just won’t fill it), or find a civilian health plan, sign up and pay for it, and get your meds that way.
You also have to travel to the VA facilities for treatment, appointments, etc. In Maine, that means an hour drive each way to the SINGLE VA hospital in the state. It also means, because the governemt decided to invest funds according to population density, that the majority of surgeries are performed in BOSTON. Yup.. a three hour drive to be seen for pre-op and post-op appointments, plus staying over many times due to logistics.
It;s very hard for family to visit when you are that far away, and you sometimes tend to get lost amongst all the other patients.
Like I said, I have complaints about the doctors, nurses, etc. It’s the sheer waste and redundancy on so many levels that just makes me want to cry.
I am very grateful for the benefits. However, so much more could be done if it was a commercial enterprise, where funding WAS a problem, and admin wasn’t a civil service position.
respects,
Forcing medical centers to perform abortions seems to be going a bit far. But I do so like a good debate, so maybe I can start one.
Last October Lex wrote about Muslim medical students refusing to treat some conditions (STDs, alcoholism, etc) on moral grounds. Lex seemed to generally disapprove of their stance. The comments seem to have been lost, but I recall there was general agreement with his sentiment. Fair enough.
In contrast, Catholic hospitals refuse to perform a different procedure for much the same reasons and everyone here seems to agree with their decision.
This seems to be contradiction. Either you approve of doctors choosing their treatments on moral/religious grounds, in which case the Muslim students were in the right, or you disapprove and the Church run hospitals should be forced to perform abortions or shut down.
So which is it? Or is there some distinction here that I’m missing?
Brian,
Nothing like injecting some good old leftist moral relativism into the debate.
The issue, vis-a-vis Muslims, involve items regarded as sinful by Muslims, which items may or may not have been original parts of Islam, depending upon which scholar you listen to. They are also often selectively enforced.
Abortion, on the other hand, involves murder, the prohibition against which is a bedrock stone of Catholicism, as well as one of the original 10 commandments.
I realize the differences are often lost on my friends schooled in the era of “I’m Ok, you’re Ok”, those who believe that all moral codes are relative, but the truth is they are not.
Keep in mind, as well, that our Muslim friends are trying to instill their own biasii in a public venue, operating public conveyances, and as such are under a different set of rules than the Privately-owned and operated Catholic facilities.
If the Muslims want to run a hallal cab service, they ought to privately fund their own and operate it in that manner. They cannot, however, go to work for an employer, and then demand that their work conditions or job description be changed to reflect their own religious beliefs.
Aw1 Tim
I can agree with your last points, about operating in a public versus private venue. But making a distinction on the basis that ‘I’m confident that my religious stance came from the original commandments, unlike yours …’ sounds a lot like a ‘my religion is right, yours is wrong’ argument. Sorry, but I don’t think so.
Michelle, I read it as “arguments against alcohol treatment and such under Islam are doubtful and debatable, as they are not fundamental to Islamic belief, while arguments against abortion under Catholicism are not, since the latter is fundamental to Christian belief.”
@AW1 Tim
It doesn’t matter how central any particular belief is to any particular religion. You either allow doctors to refuse to perform procedures for their own reasons, or not. That was point.
The Muslims were a handy example, but there are other examples. I wouldn’t be surprised if you can find doctors from some sect that refuse to prescribe antibiotics.
>>are under a different set of rules than the Privately-owned and operated Catholic facilities.
… which accept public funding in the form of Medicare and Medicaid.
Well said, however:
re- “for all its faults’
So insidious folks have to go out of their way to add that just for fairness or whatever…Almost built in like an adjective.
Brian,
fact- STDs and alcoholism are actual diseases abortion is elective like nose surgery…
b2
It’s a little too nice a comparison. I wouldn’t have a problem (from a governance perspective) with chartered Islamic hospitals – even those that receive public funds – refusing to treat STDs, alcoholics, women if that was a precondition to their charter, existing at the time public funds were allocated. Anyone who choses to go to that kind of hospital would have to accept that certain services wouldn’t be available to them, and to seek their medical care elsewhere.
I do have a problem with a Muslim doctor contracting with a public hospital, accepting public funds and then refusing public duties (increasing the workload on those not so constrained). It burdens the rest of the system when an OB/GYN refuses to do duties normally considered a part of his task set. Arguing this ad absurdem, it would be like a Catholic doctor contracting to work in a publicly funded abortion clinic and then declining to perform abortions.
Now it’s true that Catholic hospitals accept public funds, while treating non-Catholics – many of whom would not otherwise, under current circumstances, have access to routine medical care. But they have always operated that way, even before public funds were allocated. They are privately chartered, operated and governed, and people who are looking for abortions – not a time-critical procedure – have other service options available and ought in any case know that abortions aren’t provided by practicing Catholics in communion with their church.
Absent a compelling public interest – the Solomon Amendment passes this test, I believe, since it serves to guarantee both the explicit first amendment right of free speech as well as the implicit first amendment right of free association while helping to defend the Republic – using the power of the purse to force an private institution to abandon a bedrock moral principle is to substitute the government’s morality for theirs. In essence it establishes a state religion of “no religion,” and by doing so imposes the same burdens our founders came here to escape.
Catholic chartered hospitals will not perform abortions. The test of public good here is whether the communities they reside in would be better served with low cost access to every other form of health care, or whether we as a country would be happier with one third of our national capacity shuttered.
This seems to me an easy one.
Borne of a Catholic womb, having Catholic sisters, and having attended Catholic school I believe I have as textured an appreciation for the glories of Rome as it is possible for a lay Episcopalian to have, and meant no insidiousness to say, as we your fractious cousins remind ourselves, that “there was never anything by the wit of man so well devised or so surely established which, in continuance of time” fallen short of its perfect essence.
God knows we have problems enough of our own to contend with, without throwing stones.
Gee. Touchy, are we? Please insert inflexive vs insidious. I just didn’t want to see it repeated in every subsequent post ad naseum by others less “texured”- reading it makes me flinch, you know. Lighten up ‘bro and Happy Thanksgiving!
BTW, you’re a helluva lot more “texured” in your essence than I!
b2
Hey, Lex, how did your one one one sessions with the nuns go? I’ll remember mine for the rest of my life, or till the scars fade away
And yes, I was a less than optimum student in my younger years.
Max,
There is law that forces people of conscience to sell abortion drugs. A number of pharmacists in many states have been fighting against this unjust law for come time saying that abortion violates their moral code. They’re not winning.
WAL Mart is forced to stock its stores in Illinois and Massachusetts with abortion drugs after being sued. They don’t stock any in stores in the other 48 states. Which brings us back to the beginning. How stupid does one have to be to cut off one’s own nose in spite? Look at those cities where the council passed an ordnance banning big box stores such as WalMart who simply elects to build in another town across the street which is happy to have the convenience, the jobs and the tax income.
Nobody is going to win by passing FOCA and telling the Catholic Hospitals to suck it up and “think of the greater good”.
What ever happened to the old “We Reserve The Right To Refuse Service to Anyone” signs of old???? Seems to me that’ll solve it all.
Funny, reserving the right to not commit murder… if it wasn’t really an issue, I”d think it a damn fine joke.
“They’re not winning” Nope they aren’t, because they don’t fight in a way the left understands. I would have closed every Wal-Mart in the State and tell them we won’t sell anything that is immoral. Period. The Druggists should find another state, and move. The Roman Catholics have the right idea. Shut ‘er down and leave. I’d also give the Feds 1 year, then demolish the buildings if the law isn’t repealed. I wouldn’t tell them the latter, just wait.
Anyone that thinks we don’t live under tyranny, needs to take a very close look at the way immorality is being forced down the throats of people of faith. This will not end well.
(edited by siteowner)
Byron, my high school was run by the Christian Brothers, good teachers (and vintners!) who had quick ways of dealing with obstreperous school boys. I learned a lot at St. Johns. Not all of it was in the classroom.
Lex, I’ll never forget the first time I was sent to the Dean of Boys office for the first time (shortly after we moved to J’ville when I started 8th grade). He told me to bend over, I was going to meet the board of education. I did, he swung, and I smiled. He wanted to know what was so funny. I told him, “I’ve had swats from a 95 pd Irish nun that hurt worse than that”. Got another one, this time all I did was sigh. Got another one
Ever so glad I didn’t get to attend Jesuit High in NOLA (but wish I did, you get a hell of an education from Jesuits!)
So, Byron,
Once is a tragedy, twice is circumstance and the third time leads one to think that there’s some sort of fetish involved…
I’m curious, if FOCA tosses current laws requiring parent notification, does that also toss the requirement of parent to pay for a proceedure for which they had no knowledge? Who signs the consent form for the medical proceedure? Until the age of 18, only a parent or guardian can do that. Who signs the financial responsibility form? The parents, having not been informed, had no knowledge, so they obviously were not present to give their legally binding consent authorizing the insurance to pay for said services. So, who pays? And what happens if something goes wrong during the abortion? Is the abortion clinic then required to notify the parents? Or are they to find out sometime *later* that their daughter has been seriously injured or has died during a proceedure they didn’t even know about?
Curtis, you miss my point. In your case the pharmacy they work at stock these drugs, ergo the pharmacists who work there would be required to dispense them the same way a Muslim working at Donut Land would be required to hand out lard-fried glazed donuts. Irrespective of the moral framework of the employee, if the employer has an item for sale the employee should either sell it, have a co-worker sell it (alcohol-free check-out at Wall Mart for example, which would be entirely at the mangement’s discretion), or choose another job. This isn’t the case for the sole practitioner.
Don’t forget, the job is not the employee’s. The job is at the pleasure of the employer. Employees who cannot do that job need not apply. Self-employed, such as doctors who have their own practice and choose their cases, have some leeway.
Granted, you could choose a dentist to perform heart surgery and if government was filling the costs you could stipulate he couldn’t refuse your bypass operation and then take money for somebody else’s root canal, but isn’t that sort of idiotic?
Oh, wait. I was talking about government.
In the case of health care, we’ve a slightly different scenario where *my* tax dollars go to a private physician. I want to be treated by said private physician, because he does good needlework and by goodness I just like the cut of the man’s jib. So I’m sold on this guy, I want him to do whatever medical thing I need.
Government saying he can’t get paid for services rendered to me, because he refuses to render others services and instead makes a referral, is wrong. Smacks of tyrrany. Makes one wonder why we bother with insurance now and single-payer later on if somebody in a suit is going to decide who we can see and what they can do.
My solution to all this is that every time an insurance claim is denied, every time a VA benefit is denied, every time a doctor is told they must do something or cannot do something, the patient has a right to a meeting.
The doctor, the patient, and the insurance or government person get to meet for 15 minutes. Personally.
Shirts off. No weapons. First two to walk out win.
If we’re going to institute the divine right of kings to decide our lives, at least with respect to our private dealings with professionals who can help or hinder our health, to my mind the traditional trial by combat seems appropriate.
For indeed, we’ll be back to the Dark Ages.
– Max
Max,
You entirely miss my point. The law compelled them to sell something they found/find unconscionable. The law has been doing this sort of thing for a long long time. Here’s a primer on the law:
If we decide to draft you and send to your death at the age of 18, that’s the law and you must obey even if your religious principles forbid killing.
If you work at a drug store you must sell drugs that will promptly lead to the death of the unborn even if you find that immoral.
The law finds that if you’re 18 years of age you are not mature enough to make the decision to drink alcohol and therefore the law forbids you that practice.
The law finds that if you are 13 and pregnant you have the right to make a decision to kill somebody else without your parent’s advice or consent but as a student you cannot take so much as an aspirin with you to school since that implies that you have such a low moral character that you must be a drug abuser or pusher.
You widdled something about the dark ages but I prefer a law to be something that was arrived at through a process of moral judgment and conscientious consideration. Did you miss that bit earlier about the fact that nobody in S. Dakota was sufficiently interested in involving themselves in the medical extermination of babies that those that do find that a good practice have to fly in outside doctors to perform the procedure? Try to focus on the underlying ethics there. They do not offer or extend that “service” to their citizens but obey a law that says that such services must be available and don’t prohibit the practice of this little service. And so we return to my point. If you want it and I won’t sell it or do it then take your pregnant ass elsewhere and find somebody who will. How hard is that?
Wrap your mind around this: if the State can compel you to perform an abhorrent act such as abortion, how long before the State compels you to undergo an abortion?
This is my last post on this subject since those who disagree on this subject tend to make other people just wish that they’d go away and die somewhere quietly. Preferably, someplace without electricity or an internet connection and would please stop bugging them on the topic.