FOCA FORCING WITH FEDERAL FUNDS
by Lydia McGrew
The second article below says 1/3 of the nations hospitals are Catholic. So maybe thats right.
How much hate do liberals have against Christianity, that they want to shut down 1/3 of the country's hospitals, to ban Christians from medicine over abortion, etc.? One thing discussion of gay marriage and abortion shows is that essentially all liberals here on this thread really do have this as a goal. Gay marraige, the Freedom of Choice Act are just means to this end.
I had a brief discussion with commentator msb in an earlier thread about the question of how, exactly, the so-called Freedom of Choice Act could be used to force hospitals and doctors to be complicit in abortion. My only question has been how that coercion would work, legally. What, exactly, would the removal of special conscience protection for abortion mean? Are doctors usually required to provide or refer for any procedure if the state they are in does not have an explicit conscience provision allowing them not to provide or refer for that procedure? What would the mechanism of coercion be if explicit state conscience protections for abortion were removed?
Now, via (of all places) Slate, by way of Secondhand Smoke, comes the plausible answer: Threat of withdrawal of federal funds.
Here's the basic idea: The most recent, and most radical, version of FOCA proposed states that the government is not permitted to "discriminate" against abortion (how do you discriminate against a procedure?) in, among other things, the "regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information." (See discussion here.) Now, if a hospital expressly refuses to allow abortion on its premises, and that hospital receives federal or state funds through a program like Medicare (which of course Catholic hospitals do), this could easily be interpreted as being a case of "discrimination" against abortion in the provision of facilities, services, and information. And the same for doctors who receive public funds but will not refer for abortions (there's that "provision of information" bit). It would in all probability be argued that this was government discrimination, because the government would be funding facilities and providers who block out abortion provision and referral as a matter of principal, even when they provide other related services such as maternity care.
This helps to explain the point made in an article that msb linked. It describes pro-abortion Senator Carol Moseley Braun's argument against a less radical version of FOCA that upheld conscience provisions. She argued that the less radical version restricted "access" to abortion; she apparently believed that the retention of conscience provisions would somehow permit limitations on such access. Did she just not know what she was talking about? Well, the answer probably is that the conscience provisions prevent doctors and hospitals from having federal and state funding blocked if they refuse to allow abortions on their premises, to perform them, or to refer for them. Absent the conscience provisions, that threat of loss of funds can come into play.
I applaud wholeheartedly the Cathoic bishops' shot across the bow to Obama: Catholic hospitals will not submit.
Posted by Lydia McGrew
whatswrongwiththeworld.net
Catholic bishops plan to forcefully confront Obama
By Manya Brachear | Tribune staff reporter
8:38 PM CST, November 11, 2008
BALTIMORE - In a direct challenge to President-elect Barack Obama, America's Roman Catholic bishops vowed on Tuesday to accept no compromise for the sake of national unity until there is legal protection for the unborn.
About 300 bishops, gathered in Baltimore for their national meeting, adopted a formal blessing for a child in the womb and advised Chicago's Cardinal Francis George, president of the conference, as he began drafting a statement from the bishops to the incoming Obama administration. That document will call on the administration and Catholics who supported Obama to work to outlaw abortion.
"This is not a matter of political compromise or a matter of finding some way of common ground," said Bishop Daniel Conlon of Steubenville, Ohio. "It's a matter of absolutes."
The bishops, long one of the leading political forces against abortion, spent the first part of Tuesday behind closed doors reportedly debating the merits of "Faithful Citizenship," a nuanced guide for Catholic voters issued last November.
Though the document made clear that "the direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many," it also advised Catholics to weigh issues like poverty, war, the environment and human rights when choosing candidates.
But some bishops said they were surprised to see Catholics cite the document as justification for selecting candidates--like Obama--who support abortion rights. A slim majority of the nation's Catholics voted for the Democratic candidate.
Several bishops said that Catholics could not in good conscience vote for a candidate who favored abortion rights after Obama pledged to pass legislation that would overturn state's restrictions on abortion such as late-term abortion bans and requirements of parental consent.
"Any one of us here would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow--die tomorrow!--to bring about the end of abortion," said Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis.
Bishops Thomas Paprocki of Chicago said such legislation could threaten laws that allow health-care workers to refrain from carrying out procedures that violate their conscience, putting Catholic health care institutions in jeopardy.
"There are grave consequences," Paprocki said in an interview. "If Catholic hospitals were required by federal law to perform abortions, we'd have to close our hospitals."
"I don't think I'm being alarmist," Paprocki told the bishops.
George agreed that losing federal funds would put Catholic health care facilities, which make up a third of the nation's hospitals, out of business. Closing Catholic hospitals would put many patients seeking charitable care from those facilities at risk, he added.
In crafting the statement to Obama, the bishops urged the cardinal to indicate a desire to work with the administration in areas of economic justice, immigration reform, health care for the poor and religious freedom. But they stressed the church's "intent on opposing evil" and "defense of the unborn child."
They vowed to oppose any law or executive order that might loosen restrictions on abortion.
They emphasized that efforts to advance abortion rights would "permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans and would be interpreted by many Catholics as an attack on the Church." They also urged Catholics in public life to be committed to the teachings of the church.
Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pa., vice president-elect Joe Biden's home town, called on his brother bishops to be more punitive against Catholic officials who are "stridently anti-life."
"I cannot have the vice president coming to Scranton and saying he learned his values there when those values are utterly against those of the Catholic Church," Martino said.
Sister Jamie Phelps, a theologian at Xavier University in Louisiana, also served on Obama's National Catholic Advisory Board. She applauds the bishops for issuing the statement. But she said the Faithful Citizenship document made it clear that while the rights of an unborn child are a priority voters should consider a whole range of issues regarding the preservation and quality of life.
"That child has no voice if it's not the voice of the bishops and the voice of Catholics," she said. "But you can not pick and choose an intrinsic evil."
George said the Faithful Citizenship document remains the guiding principle for Catholic voters. But he said future versions should be tweaked so portions are not "misused and misinterpreted." He said Catholics seemed to overlook the "whole question of proportionate reason."
George has attributed Obama's victory to the economy, insisting that it was not a referendum on moral issues such as abortion rights.
The bishops also approved a blessing on Tuesday devoted to a child in the womb, intended to support parents, unite parishes and foster respect for human life within society.
"Obviously it's a very tangible way for us to witness pastorally and sacramentally to the life of an unborn child," said Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville. "It's very consistent with the priorities we've raised."
chicagotribune.com
Interesting comments I ran across:
Similarly, if you don't like dispensing RU-486, go into another profession. No one has a gun to your head forcing you to be a pharmacist.
In other words; Christians need not apply. Lets leave the healing professions in the hands of those who attach no special sanctity or dignity to human life.
I get the secular part, but what exactly is "conservative" about your approach? Don't you mean authoritarian?
Posted by Kevin
...go into another profession.
Such supercilious diktats should be recognized for what they are, namely, declarations that socially influential professions shall be closed to those professing the Christian religion, should they have the temerity to profess that religion as a way of life, and not as a mere personal affectation, gnostic conceit, or Soviet-style personal liberty ("between the ears alone"). It is, to put a fine point on the matter, perfectly analogous to the statutes and customs by which Christians are reduced to dhimmis in self-conscious Islamic cultures, and to statutes common in early phases of Western history by which Jews were restricted to occupations regarded as ignoble and base. It is the moral and political equivalent of subjugation and anti-Semitism. Period.
Posted by Maximos
don't go into a business where it's an integral component.
Hospitals operate without various services (emergency, urology, orthopaedics) that are "integral components" of health care, but they aren't threatened with loss of funds. It is impolitic and counterproductive to withdraw support from a hospital that provides useful services because of one procedure.
Posted by CJ |
