It’s becoming more and more likely that President Obama and the Democrats will pass a health care bill by the end of the year, probably with some form of public option, and subsidies to help low-income families purchase insurance. Overall, I think this is a good thing: as a Catholic, I agree with our Bishops that health care reform is a moral imperative, and that it should provide a preferential option for the poor. If my taxes end up having to be raised to pay for it, then so be it. I have no ideological aversion to “big government.”
However, as a Catholic, I also agree with our Bishops that we should not support a plan that funds the destruction of human life at its most innocent and vulnerable stage. That should be a deal-killer for all of us, simply because it is antithetical to the very purpose of medicine and the very ideals that cause us as Catholics to support health care reform. That said, the issue of abortion funding is a thorny and complicated one, and I’ve spent the last few days wondering what, exactly, “no federal funding of abortion” means. To put it another way, exactly which restrictions beyond those that are currently in place would allow sincerely pro-life Catholics to support a health care plan, and which allowances should cause us to reject it? I’ve listed some more specific questions below the fold, and I’d like to get a discussion going. These are not rhetorical questions; I am an 18 year-old pro-life Catholic with a limited knowledge of the intricacies of moral theology and public policy, and I would appreciate any insight as to what exactly I should and should not support or accept.
1. On the issue of federal subsidies for the poor: it goes without saying that the public plan cannot cover abortion, but should we insist that any private health insurance plans purchased using federal subsidies not cover abortion (as most private plans currently do)? If such a restriction is not included in the bill, must we reject it for this reason alone?
2. On the issue of birth control: should the fact that a public option, even if it specifically excludes abortion, will probably cover other forms of “family planning” cause us to reject it? There are two issues here: firstly, that we Catholics believe contraception to be an intrinsic evil; and secondly, that lots of institutions that provide contraceptives and family planning advice (i.e. Planned Parenthood) also provide abortions. Since money is fungible, this would essentially amount to indirect federal subsidization of abortion “services.” Should these factors cause us to reject any public plan that covers contraception?
3. Let’s say that a public insurance plan is subject to the same restrictions as Medicaid, which under the Hyde Amendment can only fund abortions in cases of rape or incest, or a threat to the life of the mother (I believe). Obviously, from our pro-life Catholic perspective, the moral evil of abortion admits of no exceptions: even those performed in such serious situations as these are unacceptable. May we be satisfied if the plan maintains this status quo? Is it acceptable to say that as long as the restrictions are not lessened (i.e. “as long as it doesn’t get any worse than it is now”), the moral good that would result from health care reform would outweigh the fact that the existing restrictions are less than ideal? This issue is complicated by the fact that, since the public option would cover more people than Medicaid, simple math suggests that the number of abortions paid for by the federal government will increase even if the current restrictions are carried forward.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In