A Pro-life Case for Health Reform

With all due respect, your reading of the bill is not really pertinent. Why do the Catholic Bishops and pro-life Democrats say that this bill expands abortion funding? What do you think of the billions set aside for community health centers, all of which could be used to pay for abortions?

And to reiterate (I've said this many times before), there are several peer-reviewed studies linking abortion funding to increases in abortion rates. This is something NARAL, Planned Parenthood, et al. will even admit to--and they complain about, since they think many women carry to term pregnancies they didn't have the money to abort. In contrast, there are no peer-reviewed studies linking lack of health insurance to abortion rates.

The pro-life thing to do would be to fight the abortion funding expansion that is part of this bill. Thankfully, we have politicians with the conscience to do this.

A helpful fact sheet put together by the Catholic bishops: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/USCCBfactsheetOnSenateB... .

For those of us who don't necessarily trust Sojo bloggers as honest brokers on abortion and health care, a more balanced perspective can be found on the Evangelicals for Social Action website. Nobody can really know what the details are on this bill vis-a-vis abortion, and one wonders whether Democrats will see this as "payback time" to the abortion industry for helping them get elected. The abortion lobby is powerful in Washington...

Manhattan Declaration.org. We will not be forced to pay for a healthcare plan that includes funding for abortions and same sex marriage benefits. Presently, our state has free health care for children who cannot afford it. It would be much less expensive to give free health care to those who cannot afford it. To have the government force you to buy health care or face fine/imprisonment, isn't only wrong but, probably unconstitutional. The way the whole issue has been dealt with concerns me enough to not trust those who have crafted the legislation. It reeks of government control. And you think that the prisons are overcrowded now?

How are you going to deal with pre-existing conditions? Don't you understand this is the only hope for dealing with this situation. I would have to assume to don't give a rats a__ about this situation. People who have individual policies are subject to ever incrreasing premiums and are trapped.

I can see the posts coming condemning any part of covering health for thousands of people becasue of their fear. I only wish they were as fearful about their own insurance that might cover abortions!!!

This won't be a perfect bill (known will ever be) but we have to start somewhere instead of burying our heads in the sand wondering if the sun it out!

"What do you think of the billions set aside for community health centers, all of which could be used to pay for abortions? "

I think you're spreading falsehoods, that's what I think. You're trying to create a bogeyman out of "community health centers."

Do you even know what Community Health Centers do?

Well,

Community health centers offer free or low-cost immunizations.

Community health centers offer free or low-cost physical examinations and general medical care.

Community health centers offer free or low-cost mental health care and follow-up.

Community health centers offer free or low-cost well-baby and well-child examinations.

Community health centers offer free or low-cost reproductive health care (another term which has fallen victim to attempted co-opting and distortion efforts from the "right"), which, aside from abortions, includes:

Free or low-cost womens' physical exams including PAP tests, breast exams, pelvic exams, etc.

Free or low-cost treatment of sexually-transmitted diseases

Free or low-cost family planning counseling and access birth control medications

Free or low-cost sexual abuse victim counseling

Those are just a few of the services those evil "community health centers" have the nerve to provide to low-income citizens.

Community Health Centers will continue to be prohibited from using Federal tax funds to provide abortion services if health care reform passes, just as they are now. The money set aside for Community Health Centers will be used to expand access to the services I've noted above, but not for funding abortions.

You are being dishonest, that's what I say.

I will survive the health care bill. I have had pre-existing conditions. In the 1990's my insurer wanted to increase my premiums to cover the increasing costs of health care. My state's Insurance Commissioner refused the modest request and the company chose to leave my state. They had the unmitigated gall to not lose money. The companies that I applied to also, one by one, chose to leave. After going uninsured for a few years, I finally was able to get coverage. My only other alternative was the state pool. You can imagine how expensive that was. The new healthcare will either be the expensive kind or services will be limited. My state insurance commisioner- Kathleen Sebelius.

Health care needs to be reformed. I just don't agree with a shotgun approach. I do know that the malpractice insurance for the doctor who delivered my last son was +$100,000. He quit. My wife's reconstructive surgeon wonders if next year he will be emptying bedpans. I guess it just boils down to who do you trust.

Look, I'm not saying community health centers are all bad. I'm saying that the money devoted to community health centers can be used for abortions. Democrats say so. Catholic Bishops say so. What you're talking about is the Hyde amendment, which does not apply to these new funds. See here: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/NRLCMemoCommHealth.html

I'm not going to say you're dishonest, because I don't know your heart. But I will say that you're wrong.

To quote:
"Buried deep in the Manager's Amendment was new language making a direct appropriation of funds for Community Health Centers (CHCs) (which are also called Federally Qualified Health Centers, or FQHCs), totaling $7 billion ($7,000,000,000) over five years. (See Sec. 10503 on page 2355 of H.R. 3590.) Because this is a direct appropriation in the health care bill itself, these funds will not flow through the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. Therefore, these funds would not be covered by the Hyde Amendment.

(The Hyde Amendment is a limitation provision that has been attached to the annual HHS appropriations bill in past years; this provision, so long as it is renewed annually, prevents the use of funds appropriated through that bill to pay for abortion or for plans that cover abortion, except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape and incest.)"

Better idea! Mennonite Relief Fund. I have always been impressed with this organization that comes to the aid of those in need. You could set up a health care system to cover all members, keep government out of the picture, and it's scriptural.

Lexington Theological Seminary Relief Fund. Disciples of Christ relief Fund. Sojourners Relief Fund. This responsibility thing for my brother instead of the government could really be a good thing, don't you think?

The Mennonites did have a health insurance plan called the Corinthian plan (I believe) for their pastors and church workers. The problem was that the poorer churches would have to be susidized and the older risk pool. Insurance was going to effectively be $700 a month for a young youth pastor. Way over what the congregation wanted to pay. Very similar to what the gov't wants to accomplish except you can't make it manditory for all churches to comply. You have to have rule of law and mandate everyone pays into the pool to keep the pool from getting too old and unhealthy. Gov't has to be involved to use a mandate. Do you see the importance of mandate?

That's why the mandate is the only way to make this thing work! Our only other choice to keep costs low would be to go to Mexico to get surgeries done without anyway to cover malpractice.

Are you putting the blame on insurance companies leaving the state on the companies or Kathleen?

Repuplicans want people with pre-existing conditions into a state pool. Not going to work is it? Too expensive because of the pool. And then they say some subsidies. Now we're back to what the Democrat is effectively (with regard to subsidies, etc.).

Are you willing to contribute $20 grand a yr to such relief? That's what it's going to cost if the church has to pick up the bill for everyone!

Who will pay that amount in a government-run program? The money will have to come from somewhere or the services will not be there. Similar systems exist in the world. Take a look at them. Will I be able to fly to another country for the best health care or will I become a criminal for wanting the best if I can pay for it?

National Right to Life has an agenda - it is not an objective source of information.

Now you're trying to say that same sex marriage benefits are included in the health care bill??? Really?

Where do you think your state gets the funds for the "free" health care for children who cannot afford it (I have yet to meet a child who can!)? They get it from taxes.

Are all children who cannot afford health care covered? In my state, enrollment has been halted and children are being dropped because of the lack of tax funding to pay for the program.

The health care bill does not reek of government control - it reeks of good old corporate capitalist self-interest and profit preservation.

The US Catholic bishops say the exact same thing re: the Hyde amendment, and they are very much in favor of universal coverage. See here: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/USCCBfactsheetOnSenateB... .

Sojourners, on the other hand, is completely objective.

"According to the 2009 CIA World Fact Book, the United States ranks dead last among industrialized countries in infant mortality rates. We are just behind Guam, Cuba, Italy, and the Isle of Man.

Thousands of children die at birth every year because their mothers can't get health care. This is a moral outrage for the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth."
--I'd like to point out that there are a number of reasons for this statistic, one of which has to do with differences in how countries keep these statistics. The US also has higher rates of premature deliveries, which are linked to a number of different health problems that are higher in the US (e.g., diabetes, hypertension). Interestingly, history of abortion is a well-established risk factor for premature delivery, and the US has the highest abortion rate in the industrialized world.

In short, it is untrue to say "Thousands of children die at birth every year because their mothers can't get health care." It is also disingenuous at best to use hyperbole like "We can end this slaughter of the innocents." Lack of health care doesn't "slaughter innocents." However, abortionists do.

Fact: Private insurance companies ALL cover abortion.
On the other hand, NONE of them will cover the cost of birth to new applicants, even if many months in the future, because giving birth is considered the result of a "pre-existing illness."

Fact: Private enterprise considers abortion the preferable option over pregnancy and birth, for the bottom-line reasons that are the only interest of private for-profit companies. Abortion is always a cheaper solution for insurance companies than pregnancy and birth.

Fact: Abortion as a "final solution" for pregnancy is very profitable and cheap - it costs an insurer only in three figures or even if drug-induced (which is also covered by private insurance companies) even less. Pregnancy carried to term and beyond can easily cost well into the middle five figures or even higher.

Fact: Pregnancy eats up profits, which is why private insurance rates for women of child-bearing age are so much higher than for that of men. Pregnancy is costly and eats up premium profits, whereas abortion improves profitability.

Fact: Economic conservatives favor abortion and birth control as measures to prevent having to spend tax money on welfare and subsidies for pregnant unwed mothers, lower economic-class women and families.

Fact: The business and financially-elite portions of the conservative movement and the Republican Party actually in practice favor abortion, but seek to still use it to mobilize socially conservative voters at election time.

Fact: a government-administered health care system that prohibits the use of tax money to pay for abortions would actually reduce the large number of abortions currently paid for by private insurance companies, both because abortion would not be funded as it is by private enterprise and because the perverse economic incentive for abortion for both the insurer and the mother and family would be eliminated.

Fact: a large factor in choosing abortion is the heavy economic burden that accrues to the unwed mother, both before the birth, and after should she choose to keep her child with her.

Fact: the United States has the worst abortion rate of western nations, despite having a health care system administered mostly by private insurance companies - which offer perverse economic incentives for abortion. In contrast, other nations with publicly-administered health care have lower rates of abortion.

These facts are irrefutable and lead inevitably to the conclusion: whatever else it may be, the private enterprise argument against universal health care is NOT a pro-life argument for reducing abortions.

There's an interesting story about how the Mennonite Mutual Aid fund got transformed (some say hijacked) into just another mutual fund investment vehicle product from Wall Street, but marketed only to well-to-do Mennonites. This occurred at the behest of some of the same individuals who decided to "mainstream" Mennonite Goshen College into patriotically playing the National Anthem, after experiencing national right-wing radio talk-show pressure. Mennonites are nothing these days if not accommodating and hospitable to the ways of the world.

Unfortunately, the Mennonite Corinthian Plan won't cover any congregational members, only pastors and full time employees. Poor congregations without their own health care or even a pastor will be contributing to others better off who will have it. And the 39% annual premium increases turn out to be unsustainable. Then it turns out - surprise! - that it's administered by - gasp! - mainstream insurer BLUE CROSS.

"Mennonites are nothing these days if not accommodating and hospitable to the ways of the world."

Actually, I would say we've slid into mainstream evangelicalism, and I've seen it coming for years. It's all about God and Country and the Two Big Sins. The degree to which this has happened varies from congregation to congregation, or region to region. I was fortunate for many years.

I have my theories about why and how it is happening, but that would be for another blog. Regardless, it's heartbreaking. I want my church back.

Jane

My home conservative Mennonite church is very like the one you're describing (sliding into mainstream evangelism, etc.). I left it a few yrs ago and haven't looked back. (much). I would like to hear some of your theories sometime.