Blog by-the-Sea

Bravo to Our Courageous Bishops and Pro-Life Representatives

Deacon Keith Fournier, writing for Catholics Online, applauds the USCCB and faithful Catholic Congressional Representatives for their work toward last night's vote in the House of Representatives.  Deacon Fournier writes, "The Stupak/Pitts Amendment was strongly supported by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops who worked with admirable persistence and courageous clarity in order to force its passage."  Fournier also mentions "the determined and courageous efforts of Congressman Bart Stupak, a Pro-Life Catholic Democrat".

I appreciate our bishops, who I think have been taking the right position through this national debate, and whose influence for life has been recognized in the national media with the passage of this bill.  With their support, pro-life Democrats stood their ground in helping to amend the healthcare bill to remove federal funding for abortion, and then passed the healthcare bill with the pro-life amendment.

Catholic News Agency also has an article about the bill's passage, discussing the celebration by pro-life organizations and the remaining risks in the legislative process.

Cardiologists and Oncologists Crying Foul Over Medicare Cuts

According to a new Bloomberg.com article, doctors who specialize in the treatment of heart disease and cancer are fighting the proposed $1.4 billion cut in Medicare payments to heart and cancer specialists next year, while the debate goes on about healthcare "reforms".  

The article says:

"The specialists, in newspaper columns and meetings with lawmakers, say patients will lose access to life-saving care, from pacemakers to chemotherapy."

The proposal slashes payments to specialists and increases disbursements to family practitioners and nurses.  I love my general internist, and I think costs are increasing partly because there has been such a drop in the number of doctors who want to become primary care providers. 

But what competent family practitioner or nurse would try to handle someone's cancer treatment or heart surgery?

It seems to me that we have too few primary care physicians right now because they are already constantly second guessed over every referral they make and every test they want to run, and bound up in red tape and insurance paperwork.  We have already seen lawsuits this year by medical doctors, the AMA, and others because of the fraud in the computer system that was used for years to determine the dollar amount that insurance carriers paid to doctors for "out of network" services.  If they did not take the time to protest every single individual payment they received for such services, they were underpaid by the carriers.  And it went on for years.  They are already being run out of practice by the paperwork and red tape, and pressuring them to have nurses do more of the work, while cutting the number of specialists willing to accept the referrals, would make things worse for them too.

And nurses?  I keep remembering every time I have heard of hospitals cutting nurses or having lesser trained staff perform duties previously performed by nurses, leaving the nurses overworked and performing duties beyond their training level in order to cut costs.  Would shifting payments from a cardiologist or oncologist to nurses really help the nurses, or just press hospitals to move physicians' work to nurses and move nurses' work to lesser trained staff yet again?

This is just another example of how the proposed changes don't reform.  I would like to see real reform that meets the needs of the uninsured.  That could even include a public option.  But right now, our government wants to cut health care provided to the sick and come up with the money to provide abortion and end-of-life services that are not health care.

Unfortunately, I think, unless we are all on our toes, "reform" is going to end up meaning cuts in necessary medical care, and public funding of abortion, and little more.  It is bad enough that I have no voice in whether my HMO bills my office for premiums, for every participating employee, that are used to pay for other people's abortions, whether we like it or not.  Having the government use my tax money for the same thing, while cutting the part of my tax money that goes to save lives, sure doesn't strike me as "reform".

Cardinal Rigali's Letter to Congress on Health Care Reform and Abortion

The USCCB website yesterday posted an article on Cardinal Rigali's letter to the House of Representatives.  The full text of that letter, dated August 11, 2009, is downloadable from that page.  The Catholic News Agency also has an article about the letter.

He affirmed that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has "long supported health care reform that respects human life and dignity from conception to natural death; provides access to quality health care for all, with a special concern for immigrants and the poor; preserves pluralism, with respect for rights of conscience; and restrains costs while sharing them equitably."  At the same time, he returned to the theme of letters previously sent by other U.S. bishops, encouraging the Congress to "respect human life and rights of conscience in the context of abortion" in its health care reform legislation.

Cardinal Rigali's letter specifically mentions some of the provisions of the bill that are supportive of life and that protect conscience rights of those who oppose abortion.  He also points out two specific areas in which the existing bill before the House of Representatives (H.R. 3200, as amended on July 31, 2009) remains deficient.  Among these is a remaining potential that abortion will be designated as a mandated benefit in the federal health insurance plan, and the bypassing of the Hyde Amendment that has long prevented federal funding of health benefit packages that cover abortion.

Limited Health Care for the Poor; Unlimited Abortions for All?

The more I hear about the details of the proposed health care plan, the worse it sounds.  I posted something earlier supporting the USCCB's position in favor of a national health care plan, with the provision that it must support life.  For clarity, I have to point out the obvious: The pending bill for a national health care plan is increasingly inconsistent with what the USCCB said it would support, and increasingly inconsistent with what I said I could support.

I received this today from our Sen Feinstein:"I understand your opinion that private coverage of abortion services should be restricted in health reform. However, I believe that reproductive health services should be treated no differently than [sic] any other health care service."

Limited health care for the sick who are too poor to pay for it, and unlimited elective abortion for all, IS treating abortion differently from other health care service, isn't it?

On July 30, the USCCB released a Statement regarding Cardinal Rigali's letter to the members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee "urging them to amend “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act' (H.R. 3200) to retain longstanding government policies on abortion and conscience rights."  The Statement goes on to mention that earlier Statement that supported national health care with pro-life provisions:

"Cardinal Rigali reiterated criteria for 'genuine health care reform' set forth by Bishop William Murphy, Chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Policy, in his letter to Congress on July 17.  He described health care as 'a basic right belonging to all human beings, from conception to natural death' and said that 'the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is working to ensure that needed health reform is not undermined by abandoning longstanding and widely supported policies against abortion funding and mandates and in favor of conscience protection.'"

The more I know about the health care bill now before the U.S. Congress, the more disgusted I become.  Our Congress has before it a chance to meet the needs of many Americans who are greatly in need of health care, who do not qualify for existing Medicaid coverage, or who cannot find quality physicians still willing to accept it.  Instead of correcting the deficiency in providing basic healthcare for those who do not have insurance, the plan under consideration increasingly sounds like it offers health care that is very limited in its provision for the poor and the elderly who are sick,  and that is unlimited in its provision of elective abortion for all. 

Somehow, Pinto health care for the sick, and Cadillac elective abortion, sounds to me more and more like the pro-abortion lobby has taken complete control of the thing.  Instead of caring for the poor and the elderly, our Congress is sacrificing the poor to come up with more money to make the pro-abortion lobby happy. 

It sounds more immoral all the time.

Current Affairs Categories Reorganized

I have re-named several of this blog's "Current Affairs" categories.  I also moved some things around where I thought they fit better in a different category.

If you arrived at this category through a "Google" search, and the post you are looking for is no longer here, the following explanation may help you to find the right category in the sidebar.

Since I last modified categories a year or two ago, there has been more overlapping than anticipated.  Some were too broad and some too narrow.  Thus, for example, an article about pro-life issues affecting the sick or disabled (euthanasia) did not fit in the "abortion" category that I had, so that those pro-life posts were shifted to a category on "human rights" and separated from the abortion-related pro-life posts.  Meanwhile, the category on "human rights" was so broad that it held a hodge podge of things, leaving me wondering why I still had a separate category for "Current Affairs: General".  There was a category called "Current Affairs: Secularism", and almost every post in it was about religious freedom.  Various articles on "Healthcare" had been placed in different categories, and I wanted to have a healthcare category.

So the "Current Affairs: General" category has been deleted, and the few posts in it have been moved to other categories. What was "Current Affairs: Abortion" is now "Current Affairs: Pro-Life", and pro-life posts that were in the other categories have been moved to it.  What was "Current Affairs: Secularism" is now "Current Affairs: Religious Freedom", and the couple of posts that did not fit the new name were moved elsewhere.  What was "Current Affairs: Human Rights" is now "Current Affairs: Social Justice" because the category includes posts about values and ethics and not only posts about "rights".  That is also intended to help to distinguish it from the category on "Religious Freedom".  Another category has been re-named "Current Affairs: Healthcare", and a number of posts have been moved in or out of it to create the new category.

No posts were deleted in the process.  Nothing other than the "Current Affairs" posts have been moved.

Pro Life and Pro Healthcare Reform

The USCCB, through Bishop William F. Murphy, placed a statement on the Congressional Record on May 20 at a formal round table discussion on "Expanding Health Care Coverage."  The staatement is both pro life and pro healthcare reform.  Catholic Online has the text and commentary, saying that it "presumes political realities" and that we must stand with our bishops and raise our voices loudly, as they are "our champions in this battle for Life over death".

The USCCB statement says, among other things:

"The basic assumptions we offer are these: 1) a truly universal health policy with respect for human life and dignity; 2) access for all with a special concern for the poor; 3) pursuing the common good and preserving pluralism, including freedom of conscience and variety of options; and 4) restraining costs and applying them equitably across the spectrum of payers."

The statement is also available for download on the USCCB page on Justice, Peace and Human Development.

This is something I have been meaning to write about when I have had the time to do more calm and reasoned research and reflection.  So I suppose I will have more to say later.

I think it would be inconsistent to be pro-life for the unborn, the disabled, and those facing end-of-life decisions, while opposing healthcare reform when the number of uninsured in the U.S. is now estimated at 47 million people and rising. 

I was glad to see Bishop Murphy's statement because "pro-life" has become such a championed cause of the Republican Party (at least in past years) while healthcare reform is currently seen as a championed cause of the Democrats.  I have wanted to stick my neck out and agree with a liberal commenter elsewhere who meant to challenge a pro-life commenter by saying that you cannot be both pro-life and anti-healthcare reform. 

Frankly, it puts us in a bit of a bind because the Republican Party, which has been our political supporter on abortion, has tended to view healthcare reform as a free enterprise issue and thus oppose a national healthcare plan, even one in competition with the for-profit health insurers.   I don't think healthcare is rightly viewed as a free enterprise vs. socialism issue.  Historically, U.S. health care, including U.S. health insurance, has been largely provided by not-for-profit organizations, and not by businesses. 

In California, historically, two primary choices were Kaiser Permanente (which is still non-profit), which was an HMO before HMO's became fashionable, and Blue Cross (which used to be non-profit).  Our hospitals still include a large number of non-profit hospitals, including our University of California healthcare systems (owned by the state-run U.C. medical schools -- and yes, I actually donate a little bit more than I pay in bills to a government-owned healthcare system, and it is probably the highest quality healthcare system in our state); Catholic hospitals; various associations of non-profit hospitals such as Sutter Healthcare in the Bay Area; and regional public "district hospitals". 

So, personally, the idea of championing "free enterprise" in treating healthcare coverage as a for-profit business does not ring any liberty bells with me.  Nor do I believe that a government health plan for the poor and the uninsured middle class will cause the quality of healthcare to drop.

I suppose that, once I have a better idea of how to write about an emotional issue in a way that is appropriate to this blog, I will need a category for it.  The existing categories on abortion, freedom of conscience, and human rights have overlapped more than I thought they would.  I will probably change the name of one of those to "healthcare" and reorganize a bit within those categories rather than adding a new one.

Meanwhile, thank you bishops!  I think Bishop Murphy's call was a good one, and it makes me feel more comfortable saying here that I am pro-life and pro-healthcare reform, and I think it is a consistent position on the issues.

Center for Disease Control Video on Hand Sanitation to Avoid Illness

Write to HHS Now to Protect Freedom of Conscience

Here is a video by Cardinal Francis George, as President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, in support of protecting conscience rights for health care workers.  There is also a USCCB page on the issue. 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is inviting public comment on a proposal to rescind a federal regulation designed to implement and enforce federal laws protecting a health care worker's conscience rights.  It applies especially to protect health care workers who are subjected to discrimination because of their religious or moral opposition to abortion.

The last day for public comment on the proposed regulatory change is April 9, 2009.  To make it easy, there is an online e-mail form on the website of the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment.  Just fill out the form, and the website will send your e-mail for you.

This was one of the subjects of an earlier post, and I am mentioning it again because the deadline will pass on Thursday, April 9.  If you have not yet written to the Department of Health and Human Services in opposition to this proposed regulatory change, please do so by Thursday.

Pro-Life Action and Prayer Now

1. Join the E-Mail Campaign against FOCA. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is encouraging people to join an e-mail postcard campaign against FOCA.  To send the e-mail to your Congressional Representatives,  fill out the form, and the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment will send it to your congressional representatives for you.

2. Write to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (e-mail to proposedrescission@hhs.gov) and to the president opposing their plan to rescind the regulation protecting health care professionals from being required to perform and advise medical procedures in violation of conscience.  Contrary to reports, the regulation was not rushed through by the Bush administration at the last minute.  Rather, it was proposed last August in order to "increase awareness of, and compliance with, three separate laws protecting federally funded health care providers’ right of conscience" (as stated by HHS at that time).  The regulation was issued because of widespread pressure on health care practitioners despite those laws.  The HHS proposal to rescind the regulation was published today.  You can read it here or Download the Federal Register notice here.  There is a mandatory 30 day period for public comment, starting today.  The purpose of the regulation is explained here.  A letter from 35 U.S. senators was reportedly sent to the President today opposing the plan to rescind this regulation.  Consider using that letter as a form to prepare your own e-mails to the president and HHS opposing the rescission of that regulation.

3.  Taking action works.  Consider, for example, the Connecticut bill pulled today in response to public outcry, especially by Catholic parishioners concerned about the proposed bill that would have purported to change the way churches were allowed to govern themselves in the State of Connecticut.  Recognizing the bill's impact on religious freedom, the state legislature pulled it before a scheduled hearing.  See articles in The Deacon's Bench and Insight Scoop.  

4.  Pray.  The Dominican nuns at Moniales today wrote about the Connecticut bill just mentioned, along with other ways in which persecution of Catholics is increasing, and said:  "Many, many, Catholics need to wake up and realize that the freedom to practice our Faith is under attack and make their voices heard. But while this is necessary we also need to remember that at root this is a fight "against principalities and powers" (Ephesians 6, 12) and prayer and penance are ultimately the only answer. This is why the contemplative vocation is needed more than ever!"

Pending Case about Doctors' Religious Freedom

A case called North Coast Women's Medical Group v. Benitez, now pending before the California Supreme Court, raises a question concerning a medical doctor's right to refuse to perform a medical procedure in violation of their religious beliefs under the First Amendment's freedom of religion.  The California Catholic Daily has an article about "amicus" (friend of the courts) briefs filed in support of the doctors.  The California Courts website provides a list of the briefs filed.

The Court of Appeal previously held that the doctor's could offer evidence that they refused to perform an intrauterine insemination (IUI) on an unmarried patient because their religious beliefs prohibited such a procedure for any married woman.  [You can download the Court of Appeal decision here:  Court of Appeal.PDF]  The patient contends that the doctors refused to perform the procedure because she told them she was a lesbian.  At the time when the doctors refused to perform the procedure, discrimination for sexual orientation was illegal by state statute, and discrimination for marital status was legal.

The issue before the Supreme Court is summarized as follows on the California Courts' website: "Does a physician have a constitutional right to refuse on religious grounds to perform a medical procedure for a patient because of the patient's sexual orientation, or do the provisions of the Unruh Act . . . preclude such discrimination in the provision of services notwithstanding the physician's religious beliefs?"

The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled argument in the case.