Feature Story - February 2010
Divisions Deep Over Health Care Reform Legislation
One of the most contentious aspects of the legislation dealt with abortion coverage. Another concerned deal-making in the Senate to secure Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson's vote for the health care bill.
Even before House and Senate conferees put the finishing touches on a sweeping, compromise health care reform bill, there was contentious debate both on Capitol Hill and elsewhere on certain elements of the measure.
The respective versions that originally cleared the House and Senate contained a number of similarities. Both versions carried a price-tag of nearly $1 trillion over the next decade, and would extend coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Nearly everyone would be required to carry health insurance, in which lower-income people would get subsidies to help them buy coverage. In addition, new requirements would be imposed for employers, and insurance companies would be barred from denying coverage due to pre-existing medical conditions.
There was even talk of legal action being taken against the final version of the measure over the areas of Senate deal-making and the constitutionality of mandated health coverage.
Regarding abortion, the House-passed version kept in place, a longstanding federal policy against government funding of elective abortions. While more complex, the Senate version had somewhat lower restrictions on abortion coverage. Individual states would be able to decide whether to bar participatory insurance plans from offering abortion coverage. Also, under the Senate bill, people who receive subsidies would be able to sign up for a health care plan that covers abortions. However, all enrollees of those plans would pay a separate premium used to cover the procedure.
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice called for health care reform without restriction to abortion services.
RCRC issued a statement that read, in part, "We must protect women's health and access to reproductive health care, including abortion care, in the final health care reform bill. There is great concern about the inclusion of language in health care legislation that puts obstacles in the path of women who need access to abortion care."
In addition, RCRC President, Rev. Carlton Veazey, said, "We–as a people of faith–have a special responsibility to bear witness in support of equal access to health care for all. In fact, it is our moral obligation to do so. One particular religious belief system must not be imposed on all of us, especially at the expense of public health. Women must have the right to apply or reject the principles of their own faith without legal restrictions."
That view was echoed by Americans United for Separation of Church and State Executive Director, Rev. Barry Lynn.
"The Catholic bishops and allied Religious Right forces are lobbying aggressively to enshrine their doctrines about abortion in the health-care reform package.
Women should be free to make decisions about reproductive health based on their own consciences, not the political decrees of church hierarchies. Religious dogma must never be imposed through force of law.
We simply cannot allow the interests of a politically powerful religious denomination to undermine the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to Americans of all faiths and none," Lynn said.
However, Concerned Women for America criticized the Senate compromise over abortion coverage.
CWA President, Wendy Wright, said, "It would put the U.S. government in the abortion business, reduce health care for patients, raise costs, and create more bloated government agencies.
Health care costs will be reduced by denying patients care. Here is one practical example: a government bureaucrat will decide which treatment will be covered for a pregnant patient–prenatal care, delivery, post-natal care, which costs thousands of dollars (and more if the baby has special needs), or abortion, which costs a few hundred dollars. As we've seen under Oregon's health care plan, which allows for euthanasia, bureaucrats choose a cheap death over expensive, life-saving care.
The option for states to opt out of abortion coverage is illusory. The federal government will be subsidizing elective abortions, a federal agency will be managing abortion coverage, and individuals will be paying for abortions through an accounting scheme. Under current federal law and programs, federal funds may not be used for any part of a plan that covers elective abortions. The human right not to be forced to be an accomplice to an evil act -- in this case, the deliberate murder of innocent babies -- is a basic decency that the government should not force individuals or entities to violate. This scheme will increase abortions, causing more women to suffer the health and psychological complications that come with this act," Wright said.
American Center for Law & Justice Chief Counsel, Jay Sekulow, stated, "We remain dedicated to protecting the sanctity of human life and demand that the final version of health care reform include real pro-life protections while providing affordable and sensible health care to Americans. It's time to stop the political deal-making and posturing and listen to the American people who understand that abortion must never become a health care benefit."
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent bulletin inserts and pulpit announcements to nearly 19,000 parishes across the country, urging the final version of the legislation not to include abortion funding.
"As long-time advocates of health care reform, the U.S. Catholic bishops continue to make the moral case that genuine health care reform must protect the life, dignity, consciences and health of all, especially the poor and vulnerable. Health care reform should not advance a pro-abortion agenda in our country," the insert stated.
Family Research Council President, Tony Perkins, said, both versions of the bill are "seriously flawed."
Perkins continued, "Both bills still allow rationing of health care for seniors, raise health care costs for families, mandate that families purchase health coverage under threat of fines and penalties, offer counsel about assisted-suicide in some states, do not offer broad conscience protections for health care workers, and seek to insert the federal government into all aspects of citizen's lives. Additionally, the bills would place a crushing debt on both current and future generations."
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention issued a document entitled, "Fifteen Principles For Successful Health Care Reform." They are, in order, sanctity of life, tort reform, competition, accountability, accessibility, private providers, careful government regulation, encouraging innovation, affordability, transparency, portability, protection from discrimination, research and development, reduce waste and fraud and catastrophic medical coverage.
The document, in part, stated, "High-quality, professional health care is an essential component of a healthy life. Our commitment to the sanctity of human life and love for our neighbor compels us to help our nation find a way to provide for the health care needs of all our fellow citizens.
To succeed in fulfilling this moral conviction, our nation must address two concerns–the high cost of health insurance and the provision of health care to those who are uninsured. Health care must become more affordable, either through reform of the private health care system or by government intervention. History teaches us that government-run health care is not the preferred option. Governments that have taken over health care have experienced skyrocketing costs and have resorted to rationing health services in order to remain solvent.
Having rejected the idea of government-run health care, we believe the moral goal of affordable, high quality, universal health care can best be achieved through reform of the private health care system. The goal of this reform should be to reduce the cost of health care and health care insurance while maintaining the highest possible standard of health care for all, thus increasing the quality of health care for more and more Americans.
Some people will refuse to obtain health insurance regardless of the incentives to do so. The nation's entire health insurance system should not be adjusted in order to accommodate these people, but ways should be set up to incentivize them to obtain insurance. While a perfect system is not attainable, there is much room for improvement," the ERLC document stated.
Also, Sojourners issued a Christian Creed on Health-Care Reform, which stresses that Christians must affirm that they believe in "quality, affordable access to life-giving services for all people."
The document, in part, stated, "As one of God's children, I believe that protecting the health of each human being is a profoundly important personal and communal responsibility for people of faith.
I believe God created each person in the divine image to be spiritually and physically healthy. I feel the pain of sickness and disease in our broken world (Genesis 1:27, Romans 8:22).
I believe, as taught by the Hebrew prophets and Jesus, that the measure of society is seen in how it treats the most vulnerable. The current discussion about health-care reform is important for the United States to move toward a more just system of providing care to all people (Isaiah 1:16-17, Jeremiah 7:5-7, Matthew 25:31-45).
I believe that Christians should seek to bring health and well being (shalom) to the society into which God has placed us, for a healthy society benefits all members (Jeremiah 29:7).
I believe health-care reform must rest on a foundation of values that affirm each and every life as a sacred gift from the Creator (Genesis 2:7). Amen."
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]
