The first causality of Obamacare may be the health care provided by 1,000 hospitals and clinics to 90 million Americans by the Catholic Church:
Meeting on the second day of their annual conference, the nation’s Catholic bishops urged an aggressive campaign to oppose the pro-abortion bill expected to be the centerpiece of the Barack Obama administration. They also mentioned concerns about Catholic hospitals being forced to do abortions. …
The statement included talking points saying that the Catholic bishops were willing to work with Obama on common issues like the economy, immigration and health care, but ready to strenuously oppose any efforts to expand abortions further.
“The church is also resolute in opposing evil,” and the bishops are “completely united and resolute in our teaching and defense of the unborn child from the moment of conception.”
The bishops also expressed concern about FOCA because it could overturn protections for Catholic hospitals that don’t want to do abortions.
Some of the bishops, during the discussion, went as far as saying the Catholic Church should be willing to close some health facilities rather them allow them to be subject to a mandate to do abortions from the Obama administration.
Hot Air notes:
How serious are they? So serious that they won’t bother to sell the hospitals. They’ll shut them down and take the losses in order to prevent their use as abortion clinics. To do otherwise, the bishops stated, would be to cooperate in the evil of abortions.
What kind of impact would that have? The Catholic Church is one of the nation’s biggest health-care providers. In 2007, they ran 557 hospitals that serviced over 83 million patients. The church also had 417 clinics that saw over seven million patients. If they shut down almost a thousand hospitals and clinics nationwide, the US would not just lose a significant portion of available health care, but the poor and working-class families that received the health care would have fewer options.
Also, the Catholic Church runs this on a non-profit basis, spending vast sums of its money to ensure access for those unable to pay. That’s the kind of model that many on the Left believe should exclusively provide health care — and FOCA would spell the end of the major provider already in that model.
So by Day 8 of President-Elect Obama, we have seen a flip-flop on domestic oil drilling, the re-introduction of the Assault Weapons Ban as well as other infringements on our Second Amendment Rights, and now rumblings about the Freedom of Choice Act which– as you may recall –Obama promised Planned Parenthood he would sign as President of the United States.
Gun Control? Tax-payer funded abortions? Flip-flops on domestic oil drilling? This doesn’t seem to be the actions of a post-partisan President to me.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
All reasons why the 2012 will be 1980 all over again, or at the very least, 2010 will be 1994. Either way things aren’t as bad for us as they seemed Wednesday.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
So the Catholic Church thinks that the life a zygote, embryo, or fetus is more important than the life of a grown individual seeking life-saving care? I’m glad they’re admitting it, but look for a move like this to cause a huge backlash.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4568.html
November 12th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
I don’t understand, Big S. Are you saying that you are in favor of forcing people to do something that is morally reprehensible to them?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
#4
They could sell the facilities, which many people rely on for treatment of illnesses or injuries (not to mention pre-natal care for babies that the parents want to deliver healthy), to interested parties. Instead, they would deny a large number of people these services in order to prevent a far smaller number of abortion procedures from being performed in a hospital they are no longer associated with. It’s hard to call a policy like that “pro-life”. Sell the hospitals, and use the money to build crisis pregnancy centers down the street – it’s the best option.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Yawn.
So a democrat lies and acts like a liberal and screws up. What else is new?
November 12th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
We need to put together some youtube ads for this kind of stuff.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Why the hell should the Catholic Church allow the government to force it to kill preborn children? Remember Freedom of Religion? If the Catholic Church didn’t threaten to shut down the hospitals, then President Obama would be more likely to force them to kill preborn children. All you who criticize the Catholic Church in this regard are b*st*rds.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
instead, you should be focusing on criticizing President Obama’s infringement on Freedom of Religion.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
No, Big S, the BEST option is just NOT to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. If you really can’t get behind THAT, then I really have lost all respect for you. I understand playing devil’s advocate, but the fact that you continue to play that role when this FOCA Bill would clearly violate the rights of Catholics to exercise their own moral prerogatives shows that liberty doesn’t mean much to you.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
People:
Assume for a minute that the Democrats pass a Freedom of Choice act. The Catholic Church acknowledges three options that would prevent them from having to perform abortion procedures in their hospital facilities:
1.) Sell the facilities so any abortion procedures performed are not performed under the Catholic Church’s watch, but needed care for everyone else remains.
2.) Stop providing obstetric services within their hospitals, which would prevent expectant mothers from obtaining prenatal care for their babies, jeopardizing many of them.
3.) Close the hospitals, jeopardizing care options for not only the expectant mother, but the ill and injured in the area.
The last option is not only the least likely to provide life-saving care for anyone who needs it, but will also cause the greatest backlash against the Catholic Church among the population. It’s a PR debacle AND a life debacle waiting to happen.
November 12th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Big S:
You sound like a socialist, you want to force The Church to run its business the way you want. That’s rich.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Obama prefers abortion to hospitals.
He’ll push abortion on Catholic hospitals despite that forcing them to shut down.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
#12
Hospitals are already forced to operate in certain ways by the government. One extra regulation on top of thousands does not make a non-socialistic enterprise into a socialistic one. That’s not the issue here – the issue is whether you agree with the law or not. I never said that I did, but I do disagree strongly with the response of some Catholic leaders that they would deny all service rather than hand it off to others in the case of the FOCA’s passage. I strongly suspect that a majority of the population agrees with me on that point, so this is not only bad medicine but bad politics on the part of those leaders that would endorse shuttering the hospitals.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
#13
It wouldn’t force them to shut the hospital facilities down for good. They’re just being a bunch of drama queens. There. I said it.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
It’s funny how Big S is incapable of saying he opposes forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.
This isn’t a “pro-choice” position. This is a pro-abortion position.
The intent of this bill is to increase the number of abortions.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Big S,
“So the Catholic Church thinks that the life a zygote, embryo, or fetus is more important than the life of a grown individual seeking life-saving care?”
The Catholic Church is not going to kill people in order to preserve the “privilege” of saving other people. The ends don’t justify the means. Or are you one of those people who would justify the slaughter of Jews for scientific advancement?
And no, the Bishops are not being a bunch of “drama queens.” They are being principled. Something most people in this day and age can’t even recognize.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Big S,
“One extra regulation on top of thousands”
So you consider forcing one person to kill another just “one extra regulation?”
That’s REALLY sick, man. No wonder our culture is so violent and coarse.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
I guess Obama wants to go to war with the Catholic Church.
I wouldn’t advise it.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
#16
Do you bother to read my comments? First, nobody’s forcing the Catholic Church to run hospitals, or provide obstetric services in their medical facilities, in the first place – as far as I know. They’re choosing to run hospitals, and they can choose not to if the law changes in such a way that conflicts with their beliefs. They have implicitly acknowledged this in their statements. I am against the FOCA as I understand it now, but I – like the Catholic Bishops quoted here – am doing a though experiment assuming its passage in a heavily Democratic Congress, with a pro-choice Democratic president in the White House. Given the three scenarios sketched out by these leaders (NOT BY ME!), the third (see my comment #11) would result in less medical care for all patients, and it would be because of a choice made by the Catholic Church under admittedly less-than-optimal legal conditions.
I understand that most of this is a dramatic device being deployed to oppose the passage of such a law in the first place, but if they ever went through with it, they would be responsible for the loss of more lives than they saved, and their public image would take a hit too.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
I’d say the Catholic church has the hammer in their hands on this issue unless Obama is too stupid to recognize that.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Those bishops, when they aren’t molesting children, are sucking at the tit of the biggest whore in the world, the Catholic Church. When are we going to rid ourselves of those meddlesome pedophiles?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Big S,
“I understand that most of this is a dramatic device being deployed to oppose the passage of such a law in the first place, but if they ever went through with it, they would be responsible for the loss of more lives than they saved, and their public image would take a hit too.”
No, the Catholic Church is very serious about not cooperating with evil, and selling a facility that will be used to kill people is cooperating in evil. There really is no choice for the Church. The decision is up to Obama and the Congressional Democrats. Are they so hell bent on death that they would rather hundreds of hospitals close than allow people to not violate their conscience?
And public opinion isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit. The Church isn’t run by a vote, and the voters won’t be judging us when we die.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Catholics are under no obligation to help Americans. If Americans do something this evil, the Catholic Church is free to say “You no longer receive our help”.
Americans can be held responsible for the governments they elect.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Charles,
“Those bishops, when they aren’t molesting children, are sucking at the tit of the biggest whore in the world, the Catholic Church. When are we going to rid ourselves of those meddlesome pedophiles?”
So when you’re not spending your time in ignorant anti-Catholic bigotry, what do you do? Jew baiting? Making up black jokes?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Godwin’s Law?
Actually, shuttering the hospitals would be more like the Catholic Church opposing a war against the killers of said Jews because a few innocent Germans might get caught in the crossfire.
Oh, wait …
November 12th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Big S,
“Actually, shuttering the hospitals would be more like the Catholic Church opposing a war against the killers of said Jews because a few innocent Germans might get caught in the crossfire.”
No. There is a difference between the law of double effect with unintended consequences, and intentionally targeting innocents.
November 12th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Big S,
Would you personally kill innocent people in order to say, keep a homeless shelter open?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
….or more to the point, how many innocent people are YOU PERSONALLY willing to kill in order to keep your local hospital open?
November 12th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
i hope the catholic church doesn’t back down on this. i understand that democrats feel differently on some issues. but almost every issue obama pushes he is looking to violate constitutional rights, which i don’t agree with. freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, property rights, dont seem to be a big concern to obama if they get in the way of his liberal agenda.
November 12th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
C’mon Big S. You’ve never been shy about your opinions before….
Tell us how many innocent people you are personally willing to kill to keep a hospital open.
Man up!
November 12th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Good for the Catholic church. They were the ones who stood for LIFE way before any other church did and now they can do it again. Why should the Catholic church have abortions within their hospitals when Catholics do not believe in abortion? They shouldn’t. Why should their doctors be told to perform abortions when it goes against their religious beliefs? They shouldn’t. And why should Catholic pharmacists dispense the morning after pill when it kills the life just conceived? They should not.
Again, good for the Catholic church-and I am not Catholic. When I was 30 weeks pregnant and started having contractions and ended up in a Catholic hospital, they would not tell me the sex of my baby. I just wanted to know so that I could visualize the baby better when I was praying. But the Catholic hospital would not allow it. Which was fine. My baby daughter was born healthy at 37 weeks and I did not know she was a girl until she was born.
Good for the Catholic Church. If you do not stand for something, you fall for anything.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I think maybe the Catholic church should try civil disobedience. Just refuse to do the abortions and see what happens when the Obama administration starts closing down hospitals, and throwing people in jail for the conviction on life.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
John Mark,
That’s a good idea, and it would give new meaning to “convicted for life.”
November 12th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
33 brings up a good point. How is this different from civil disobedience? If the Catholic Church wants to press the issue in a non-violent, totally legal way by shutting down their hospitals in protest of the fact that they are being FORCED to perform medical procedures that they find morally reprehensible in the highest, why shouldn’t they? It isn’t a question of give-and-take: “Oh, well, we’ll save some lives and save face by selling the hospitals and then we won’t have to deal with the abortion issue”. The fact is that the Catholic Church has a principled belief that all life is equally sacred, and I think it would be most consistent for the Church to allow for the indirect deaths of people who would miss out on the health care than to be *directly* responsible for the deaths of the unborn.
It’s called the Doctrine of Double Effect, and it’s one Republicans should be *especially* aware of, since it was the idea behind the Iraq War.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Although technically even the Iraq War doesn’t quite meet the criteria of the principle of double effect…
November 13th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
before doing abortion, better doing “bj” in oval room first?
(uppst …sorry..I am too liberal maybe….)
November 14th, 2008 at 11:21 am
I say to allow the Catholic Church their right to refuse to do abortions, but they shouldn’t receive a cent of government money either. That way they both can claim victory. Nor should they have tax exempt status for the building. I’m one of those mean people that don’t think any building/business owned by a church should be tax exempt, just the house of worship.