www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall kerry wrong for catholics. com

djs wrote:

I've cited Kerry's site re: his view about the need for the nation's judiciary to support abortion rights. Kerry refers to those who hold to pro-life views as "right wing extremists."

What is Kerry's position on Catholic hospitals refusing to be involved in abortions?

Did you have any documentation for you claim about the Republicans and the embryonic stem cell issue?

August 09, 2004, 8:32 a.m.
Can I Get an �Amen�?
Hostility toward religion in law and politics.

Later this week, the American Bar Association will consider a resolution introduced by its Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, which sets forth its opposition to government policies that interfere with the "ability of patients to access, in a timely manner, either directly or referral, medically appropriate care." Behind the veil of this seemingly innocuous proposal is a troubling attempt by the ABA to demand that the government discriminate against the religious practices of health-care providers across the country. It is yet another example of the increasingly open hostility toward religion � and morality generally � from the legal establishment.

Catholic hospitals and medical providers have become an integral part of the nation's health-care system, providing critical health-care services to the poor. As many as 1 in 5 Americans, regardless of religion, race, age, or ability to pay, receive health care from Catholic caregivers. More than 15 million emergency-room visits and 84 million outpatient visits occur in Catholic hospitals in a given year.

Even more critical to the mission of Catholic health care is its religious identity. Its service to the sick and dying in the community is based on core principles of faith � that it can heal the person by ministering to the body as well as the soul. So as part of its outreach to the sick, Catholic health care is careful not to provide or support services that are inconsistent with the Church's teachings � such as abortion, contraception, certain infertility treatments, and assisted suicide. As the Catholic Bishops' Conference has stated, "Catholic health care does not offend the rights of individual conscience by refusing to provide or permit medical procedures that are judged morally wrong by the teaching authority of the Church."

In order to permit Catholic and other faith-based health-care providers to remain religious while serving critical public functions, state and federal legislators have often provided "conscience" protection that permits religious-based health-care providers to opt out of programs or treatment that they find objectionable. For example, even though they often treat patients receiving Medicare or Medicaid, religious-based hospitals are permitted by federal law not to provide abortion services or referrals.

It is this core exercise of religious conscience � and the government's accommodation of it � that the ABA finds so objectionable. Citing studies with titles such as "When Religion Compromises Women's Health Care: A Case Study of a Catholic Managed Health Care Organization," the ABA argues that the religious practices of Catholic health-care providers, both individual and institutional, deny needed health services and information to patients, especially women. Its singles out certain Catholic health care-providers, such as Fidelis Care New York, a Catholic health-care system that provides Medicaid services to the residents of 33 New York counties � services that might otherwise not be available were it not for the faith-based outreach. What crime has Fidelis committed that merits the attention of the nation's bar association? It refuses to provide certain "family planning services" to its patients or refer patients for such services � services that contravene the core teachings of the Catholic faith.

One might argue that this sort of ABA resolution has about as much to do with the mission of a national bar association as a resolution addressing the judicial-nomination process would have to do with the mission of the American Medical Association. But putting that aside, the substance of the ABA's proposal is nothing more than a full frontal assault on the core religious tenets of the Catholic Church. No one at the ABA seems to see the irony in the fact that a resolution seeking to override the exercise of religious conscience by thousands of Catholic health care providers is being proposed by a committee devoted to the protection of "individual rights and responsibilities." Apparently, the free exercise of religion is not an individual right protected by that particular committee.

The ABA resolution is symptomatic of a much broader problem of anti-religious bigotry in the legal establishment. Indeed, the last safe harbor for bigotry in our country is religion. The recent decision mandating same-sex marriage by a Washington state lower court demonstrates the major advances made by the anti-religion movement in the last 50 or so years. In examining the possible reasons that a state might define marriage as a man-woman institution, Superior Court Judge William L. Downing rejected the notion that "morality" provides a sufficient justification for any legislation: "In our pluralistic society, the moral views of the majority can never provide the sole basis for legislation." He thus concluded that it "is not for our secular government to choose between religions and take moral or religious sides in such a debate."

Judge Downing is certainly not alone in his antagonism toward "morality" and religious influences in the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has given him plenty of cover. It has banned prayer at school graduations and football games, while growing increasingly hostile to "morals-based" legislation, such as the prohibition on same-sex sodomy invalidated in Lawrence v. Texas. The message from judges to lawmakers: Check your morality at the legislative door.

It seems that some politicians have embraced this thinking, as evidenced by Democratic standard-bearer John Kerry's recent remarks about his Catholic faith. While insisting that he believes that life begins at conception, he fervently supports abortion rights and embryonic-stem-cell research. "I don't take my Catholic beliefs, my article of faith," he says, "and legislate it on a Protestant, on a Jew, or an atheist, who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America." Perhaps Democrats took that notion one step too far in hiring as the Democratic National Committee's senior religion adviser a lawyer who joined in a brief supporting Michael Newdow's efforts at the Supreme Court to have the words "under God" stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance. It was only after public outrage that the adviser resigned. But Senator Kerry's words and actions demonstrate an interesting and seriously flawed conception of separation of church and state � that religion and morality have no place in our public discourse. Taking Senator Kerry at his word about his personal beliefs, one has to ask what serves as a substitute for his personal morality in his lawmaking decisions.

While always observing a formal separation of church and state, this nation has a great tradition of religiously motivated lawmaking. As early as the late 1700s, the Pennsylvania Quakers, joined by many civic and religious leaders, led an assault on the institution of slavery. The civil-rights movement of the 1960s was led by prominent religious leaders, such as Dr. Martin Luther King. Today, the Catholic Church works diligently for laws promoting social justice for the poor and for immigrants. Surely, Senator Kerry wouldn't think that the religious motives behind this sort of legislation are improper.

In his farewell address to the new nation, George Washington admonished her citizens, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports." What was true then is becoming all the more necessary today.

� Shannen W. Coffin, a Washington, D.C., attorney, is a former deputy assistant attorney general for the civil division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Dave wrote What is Kerry's position on Catholic hospitals refusing to be involved in abortions?

His first Senate speech in 1985 defended legal abortion. He has voted to deny federal funds to hospitals -- including Catholic ones -- that refuse to perform abortions. He voted against a bill to establish penalties for harming a fetus during the commission of a federal crime. He has consistently opposed a ban on partial-birth abortions. When President Bush signed that ban, Kerry declared, "There is no such thing as a partial birth."

The whole article follows..
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04130/312841.stm

Sorry I forgot to respond to this. No documentation. I noted here some time ago (beginning of May?), that information is from a discussion by some heavy hitters in the field, over a dinner that I attended in La Jolla. I should clarify that the CA Republican Congressional delegation and state officials were alleged to have made this representation.

What about Bush? From Mark Shea today"
My point on crusading is that, while politicians make appeals to invigorate their base during the campaign, they tend to preside with more moderation. On both sides. Few if any are crusading; the vast majority would like this issue to just go away. And that is what happens outside of campaigns.

DJS said, "I think that your definition is about sinlessness, not about being Catholic. It is not grumpiness but arrogance for a layman to make assertions about who is and who is not Catholic."

I totally agree. Last time I made remarks about why Kerry is the Better choice; I was told that I can not call myself Catholic either! Kerry, nor I, is not for killing babies. However we have constitutional rights that should not be taken away. Equal rights for all people, religious or not. Now lets stop bush with his death penalty killings and the killing of our heroic troops in Iraq. Let�s stop the killing on the streets with semi-assault weapons. Lets feed the poor, not the rich. Let's protect the environment we all need to live and raise healthy children. There are many important factors in this election, Do not become blinded by one issue. Vote Kerry for a better economy, world support and a clean environment.

MKE and Djs,

I, personally, think Bush is an imbecile. I think he is an unintelligent, rich boy, my-connections-got-me-here idiot. I think that his Cabinet, most notably Rumsfeld and Cheney, are images of the Antichrist and are hellbent on their own selfish agendas.

I think Kerry has great points about the economy, the environment, capital punishment, the war in Iraq, etc. I think he truly desires for the wellbeing of the general bourgeois instead of the richest of the rich.

HOWEVER, as Catholics we must weigh the issues, as I'm sure we've heard again and again. And it seems to me that with millions of abortions per year, the other issues combined simply don't add up to the number of lives that could be saved if a pro-life Supreme Court were in place. I hear again and again that in the next four years two or more of the Supreme Court Justices will most likely retire, and the president will have a chance to put in either pro-life or anti-life/pro-choice Justices. We know for a fact that Kerry wouldn't choose pro-life Justices. The Bush Administration, for all of its shortcomings has, I believe, shown itself to be much more against abortion that the Kerry campaign.

So, in terms of numbers of possible lives saved, I still don't see how I could legitimately vote for Kerry. The innocent children who are murdered far outnumber those who are being killed in Iraq and on death row.

My family benefits from the Bush Administration's tax cuts, but will not from Kerry's. Nevertheless, both of my parents support Kerry. I sympathize with their views, as well as y'all's, but cannot see how it's possible to vote for Kerry.

What say you? I'd love to hear your viewpoints on this.

Logos Teen

Assuming, of course, that you feel that indeed our economy would be better, the environment clear and the world more supportive if Sen. Kerry were elected.

Seriously, I have to agree. No one here doubts abortion is a grave and serious matter. The Church teaches that it is destructive both spiritually and morally and, as far as I've heard, no one here disagrees with that.

However, is not blindly voting for a candidate just becasue of this one issue a way of "passing the buck" to the government and expecting it to win over the hearts and minds of the people.

People have been destroying their bodies and souls through their use of illegal drugs for as long as anyone can remember. Government prohibitions don't work here, and history teaches us that they won't work to stop abortion. (Go rent the movie "Dirty Dancing" if you don't believe me.)

If we want to stop abortion or any other symptom that ails our society, it is up to us to change people's perceptions - not to simply demand that our government play "Big Brother" and proclaim from on high: "that's bad, so you can't do it."

The overwhelming majority of people in our society agree that it could not effectiely function if people could kill, steal, lie and cheat on their taxes at will. Thusly and therefore, our governmental entities "by the people, for the people and of the people" have enacted rules and regulations governing this conduct.

As things stand right now, political theorists will tell you that there is not yet sufficient agreement over the destructive nature of abortion that would result in government action.

As those who profess Apostilic Christianity, is it not therefore OUR job to win over the hearts and minds of the people before we demand that our government does so?

Yours,

hal

"the ABA argues that the religious practices of Catholic health-care providers, both individual and institutional, deny needed health services and information to patients, especially women. "

Yes, and now in the Glorius Commonwealth of Mass., the state of Sen. Kerry, if you are a healthy individual, and approach a clinic for a flu shot, you can be fined $50 and thrown into jail. Where is the freedom of choice there?

Teen:

This is the crux of the matter. In measuring proportionality we are talking about lives likley to be saved. We've doen the experiment with Bush - result: the declines under Clinton are diminished. Of course it's always someone elses fault; never this admnistration's. Nevertheless if you feel that somehow the situation will be entirely different in BushII and substantially different than Kerry, then you must vote Bush.

I think that such a view, while possible in really unlikely. It is often used by those who support Bush generally and want to help that along.

Mike C.

Google give nothing on what you wrote. How about a reference.

Btw, we certainly cannot choose what we cannot have. Too bad there was aq failure to get the goods.

When I saw how big this thread had gotten, I wasn't sure whether to post the following or not, since without reading all of the posts I may be recouping something. If I am, forgive me.

I have a friend who is retired from the health care industry. He was in hospital administration primarily. He tells me that prior to Roe v. Wade, only the wealthy who could afford to go overseas had abortions, except for the backstreet butcher variety of folklore. He went on to say that there were even champagne flights to other countries designed specifically with abortion in mind. I was at a loss for words.

So, apart from the moral dilemma, there is even an economic factor that can come into play. Disgusting.

Well, the rich can always afford to do immoral acts unavailable to the poor; why should that be our standard?

I did find a few reports, and now there is an AP story on Drudge. A number of states and DC are enforcing a triage, which provides for penalties to health care workers who give flu shots to people at low-risk people. The severity of the penalties vary according to the level of authority the the public health administration has in each state.

Of course, this has nothing to do with Kerry, but is in fact the reponsibility of an administration that never makes a mistake.

MKE writes: "Kerry, nor I, is not for killing babies. However we have constitutional rights that should not be taken away. Equal rights for all people, religious or not."

Just how does Kerry allow his personal faith, his beliefs, his Catholicism, to shape his thinking and his actions when it comes to other areas of social justice, but not to abortion? How is he able to draw that line? Particularly when medical science proves that a human's life begins at fertilization, and that more than ONE MILLION of those lives are terminated (contrast that number to deaths caused by other social problems) annually in the U.S

Okay, the Constitution (according the Supreme Court) protects a woman's right to privacy, to "chose." So when will Kerry have the guts to say that a woman's right to chose should not preclude a fetal human being's right to exist? That perhaps the Constitution needs to be amended? That he will introduce (or at least vote for) legislation that will serve to reduce the number of abortions (legislation that includes language that protects the life of the mother, if that's what it takes)?

That's when I'll vote for Kerry--when he shows some of that "integrity" that he talked about in the last debate, instead of just pandering to the feminist lobby.

What fundamental liberty, what constitutional issue is raised by an office-holder's acting on the impulse to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, ... ? Such actions certainly fall within the realm of powers granted to our government. On the other hand, it would clearly be a problem, in this context, for office-holders to use the power of their offices to work, for example, for conversions to the Catholic religion - even though any Catholic office-holder is likely think that conversions would be enormously beneficial to our fellow citizen's well-being.

So the principle for this separation is easy. The tough problem is where do life issues fit in.

We champion the perspective that the full respect and protection of law accorded to a human being should apply to that human life from its conception. As I've mentioned before, while this teaching is beautifully life-affirming, it is a tough teaching, for which there is no clear consensus - even among sincerely religious people. Indeed while we embrace this view it is clearly not well-knit into the fabric of our spiritual practice. For example, if a woman miscarries early in pregnancy, what are the prescribed rites of burial? We now suspect that many embryos fail to implant and are discharged by menstruation; who tries to save these lives? Even the strongest pro-life advocates still, at some level, act as though there is a difference between born and pre-born lives. The intuitive sense of this distinction has to be understood as providing clear evidence for the untenability of our position to those who do not share our belief. In this sense, the matter does assume a strong religious dimension. The issue of fundamental and constitutional liberties is also clear from all of the SC rulings. Collectively, these issues provide a basis for understanding the real distinction between appropriately unrestrained Catholic action in, for example, feeding the hungry, but restraint in the proscription of abortion. This perspective, of course, is limited to office-holders in our liberal democracy; for monoarchand dictators, of course, these considerations do not apply.