This should have been good news; but alarms were raised when a careful reading of the approved insurance plan revealed it would cover abortions. Following a public outcry, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a statement that the agency will act to exclude abortion from this program.

The Bishops of Pennsylvania welcomed the commitment from HHS to exclude abortion from the federal health insurance program and echoed the sentiments of a July 15 statement issued by the chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB):

This week it was reported that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had approved a new high-risk health insurance program for residents of Pennsylvania that by its terms would cover abortions without meaningful limits. This federal program, established by the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), will provide health services until 2014 to uninsured persons with pre-existing conditions. The Pennsylvania plan, while purporting not to fund “elective” abortions, made clear in its text that all abortions that satisfy the requirements of certain Pennsylvania statutes (i.e., all abortions that are not illegal in that state) would be covered, and reimbursed, with a combination of private premiums and federal funds drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This first announcement that $160 million in federal funds would be used to provide pro-abortion coverage raised an alarming precedent. Later the news also became public that the state of New Mexico would be covering “elective abortions” in its federal high-risk pool, which was already accepting enrollees.

Last night, however, HHS reacted to public criticisms by announcing that it will act to exclude abortion from this federally funded program, in accord with the assurances that Secretary Sebelius and President Obama have repeatedly made that PPACA will not be used to promote abortion. We welcome this new policy, while continuing to be gravely concerned that it was not issued until after some states had announced that pro-abortion health plans were approved and had begun to enroll patients. This situation illustrates once again the need for Congress to enact legislation clearly stating once and for all that funds appropriated by PPACA will not pay for abortions or for insurance coverage that includes abortion. Such legislation would mirror the Hyde amendment and similar provisions which prevent such abortion funding in all other federal health programs.

In this program as in others, the issue of government involvement in the taking of innocent human life should not remain subject to the changeable discretion of executive officials or depend on the continued vigilance of pro-life advocates. It is vitally important for people with serious medical conditions who have been unable to obtain coverage to receive the help offered by programs such as this – and for them to be assured that their coverage will be life-affirming, not life-threatening.

For the latest news and information about the Bishops’ positions on health care reform, log on to www.pacatholic.org/health-care.

EDUCATION

The big news about the budget is funding for the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) program. EITC provides a tax credit to businesses that contribute to organizations that give scholarships to students to attend the school of their choice. Many Catholic school students benefit from EITC scholarships. The successful education program was cut by $15 million last year and was scheduled to be cut another $10 million this year. But thanks to the hard work of the Advocates of Catholic Education in Pennsylvania, this year’s cut was avoided. EITC will be funded at the same level as last year – $60 million. Better still, the share that funds scholarships for students in nonpublic schools was increased more than $2 million to $40 million.

Public schools were one of the winners in this year’s budget; their basic subsidy was increased $250 million for a total of $5.1 billion. Comparatively, non-public school students benefit from a small line item the state education budget that pays for textbooks, materials and a few special services. Those line items received a minimal decrease of less than 1%.

HEALTH CARE

Catholic health care facilities like hospitals and long-term care homes have a special mission to serve the poor. Many of their patients and residents are eligible for Medical Assistance (MA). Fortunately, no payment reductions were made to hospitals in the final budget. The budget also includes a modernized MA payment system that will improve and stabilize reimbursements to hospitals and will help leverage federal matching funds. Hospital officials say the new system will help to enhance patient access to care and provide hospitals with much needed additional funding.

Long-term nursing facilities, assisted living centers, and other long-term care services however, suffered a $34 million loss of funding in several different programs.

The budget counts on $850 million from an extension of the Federal Medical Assistance Program (FMAP) that Congress has yet to approve. If this does not happen, the governor and lawmakers will have to modify the budget to address the shortfall.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Catholic Charities agencies provide a number of programs that are funded by the state. Many of these programs, such as services to people with disabilities to help them live independently, are paid for by the state’s Human Services Development Fund (HSDF), which was cut by $2 million.

A slight cut of $38,000 to the state funded alternatives to abortion program, administered by Real Alternatives, Inc., seems minuscule within the billions of dollars being spent all together on the broad range of social service programs. However, each of those dollars would go a long way to helping women choose life for their unborn children.

The efforts of grassroots supporters made a definite difference in this year’s budget, especially for EITC. Advocates visited, called, faxed, and wrote letters and e-mails to their state legislators. Some wrote letters to the editor of local newspapers. Many more prayed for our elected leaders and the future of our Commonwealth. Thank you for your support.

If you are not yet a member of the Pennsylvania Catholic Advocacy Network or the companion Advocates for Catholic Education in Pennsylvania, consider signing up at www.pacatholic.org. Join us. Be heard. Make a difference in Pennsylvania.

PCC Column July 2010 by A.B. Hill, Communications Director of the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference – the public affairs arm of Pennsylvania’s Catholic bishops and the Catholic dioceses of Pennsylvania.

Archbishop Basil M. Schott

The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference (PCC) is saddened by the news that Metropolitan Basil M. Schott, Archbishop of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, died on Thursday, June 10, 2010.  He will be laid to rest next week.

As the leader of one of the 10 Catholic dioceses that comprise the PCC, Archbishop Schott was a member of the Board of Governors.  After many years of service to Byzantine Rite Catholics and to the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, he will be sorely missed.

More information about Archbishop Schott and the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh is available at www.archeparchy.org.

Printer Friendly Version

Did the Catholic bishops of the United States support the final version of the health care reform law?

No. Although the bishops have for decades supported universal health care, they opposed the final bill because (1) it failed to preserve the status quo with regards to abortion funding, (2) it unjustly discriminated against immigrants, and (3) failed to adequately protect conscience rights.

If the bishops really wanted health care reform, why didn’t they accept the bill as “less than perfect,” but better than nothing?

Certain principles cannot be compromised, especially those concerning the protection of human life, religious liberty, and the dignity of human persons. No matter how much good a proposed law might do, it cannot be supported if it violates those fundamental principles.

Why were the bill’s abortion provisions inadequate?

In one sense, it was the absence of a particular abortion provision – one that clearly prohibited all abortion funding – that was the problem. Unlike the House bill that passed last year, the Senate bill, which was the basis for the final bill, did not have sufficient prohibition.

What are the abortion problems in the bill that passed?

Without a global ban on abortion funding, some of the funds appropriated in the bill could be used to fund abortion. For example, the new law provides additional funding for the Community Health Centers, but the law does not prohibit that money from being used for abortions.

The law provides subsidies to help purchase plans that cover abortion.

Doesn’t the Hyde Amendment apply to the new law?

No. The Hyde Amendment, which for years has prohibited federal money from paying for abortions – except in the case of rape, incest, and life of the mother – and from being used to purchase insurance policies that include abortion, does not apply to the new law. The Hyde Amendment, which must be passed annually, only applies to appropriation bills with the amendment attached, particularly the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Aren’t there “Hyde-like” provisions in some parts of the new law?

Yes, there are some provisions like the Hyde Amendment in the bill, but they are limited in scope and do not apply to all the funding in the act. For example, school-based health clinics funded through the new law cannot provide abortion services. Also, there are some limits on the use of federal monies to directly pay for abortions. There are, however, other funds appropriated in the new law that have no abortion restrictions.

If the Community Health Centers are funded through the Department of Health and Human Services, why doesn’t the Hyde Amendment apply to them?

The Hyde Amendment only covers certain appropriations and is not triggered solely because the funds go through a particular agency.

But I heard that the Community Health Centers do not perform abortions, so what is the problem?

The Community Health Centers do not currently perform abortions with federal dollars because that funding has, until now, been subject to the Hyde Amendment.

Does the new law expressly direct the Community Health Centers to provide and pay for abortions?

No. However, the Community Health Centers must provide primary health services, including “health services related to family medicine, internal medicine, … obstetrics, or gynecology that are furnished by physicians,” and “family planning services.” Courts have ruled that this language requires such facilities to provide abortion services unless Congress expressly acts to exclude such services. In this case, Congress failed to expressly exclude coverage for abortion at the Community Health Centers. The absence of the exclusion makes the centers subject to the court decisions mandating abortion services and funding.

How does the new law subsidize the purchase of insurance policies that include abortion?

Current federal law prohibits the use of federal money to directly pay for abortions and to purchase insurance policies that include abortion. For example, federal employees are not provided health coverage directly from the federal government. Like most of us, they are covered by insurance policies, the premium for which is paid, at least in part, by the employer, which in this case, is the federal government. Employees can choose from hundreds of plans. However, because federal dollars are involved, the Hyde Amendment applies and none of those plans can include abortion.

Congress failed to apply this policy to the new health care reform law. Under the new law, many Americans will have at least part of their insurance premiums paid by the federal government, though you won’t see it directly. Unlike the federal employee system, the plans you can buy can include abortion.

But I thought the money for abortion was paid for by the individual and kept separate?

To maintain the appearance that federal money is not being used to cover abortion, the law states that if an individual chooses a plan that covers abortion, the person must write two checks, one for the coverage of abortion and one for everything else. The federal government adds its own money stream to help cover the individual’s premiums. Only the “abortion” money paid by the individual is supposed to be used to pay for abortions. However, the fact remains that the policy subsidized by the federal government includes abortion and that the funding segregation does not alter the fact that money from one pocket is being transferred to another. Moreover, the “segregation” policy presents another problem in that it forces people to pay for someone else’s abortion.

Will everyone have to pay the “abortion premium?”

That depends. Any family that has to buy a subsidized plan that happens to cover abortion —for example, because its coverage or provider network are necessary to meet the family’s health needs—will be forced by the new law to provide a separate payment, on a regular basis, solely to pay for other enrollees’ abortions. There are no exceptions.

What if there are no plans in my area that do not include abortion?

The law requires that there be at least one plan within a regional exchange that does not cover abortion. However, not every plan will be identical. It may be that the plan or plans within the regional exchange that do not cover abortion do not meet your family’s needs for other reasons.

Can Pennsylvania opt out of abortion coverage altogether?

It appears that in the health exchanges that are to be created, Pennsylvania could provide that no plan in the exchange will cover abortion. Or, it might provide that the plans in the exchange will cover elective abortion only in the cases of rape, incest or life of the mother.

Does Pennsylvania need to pass a new law to opt out of abortion coverage by plans in the exchange?

If opting out of elective abortion coverage entirely is to occur, it appears that a new law would have to address that.

If plans are allowed to cover abortion, at least one plan in the exchange would have to provide elective abortion coverage in the case of life of the mother, rape or incest. But such a plan might not be appealing to consumers for other reasons such as it is not as good as other plans which do provide abortion coverage.

If Pennsylvania can opt out of the abortion coverage in plans, is there any problem for Pennsylvania health insurance consumers?

Pennsylvania taxpayers would still be forced to indirectly subsidize policies that cover abortion simply because tax dollars go to the federal coffers which subsidize the health insurance provided by reform. In addition, the federal law is flawed because in other states, which do not exclude abortion coverage, it forces people there who obtain insurance through an exchange to pay a separate premium on a monthly basis solely to cover abortions for others.

Did the executive order signed by President Obama fix these problems?

No. An executive order cannot change provisions of the new law or run afoul of the interpretation that courts will give to the new law. In fact, the executive order signed by the President does not even purport to fix the law’s funding problems.

If all this is true, why are some saying that the new law does not fund abortions?

Look closely at what is being said and not said. Some say that the bill does not directly “provide funding for abortion” or something to that effect. It is true that the bill does not explicitly authorize abortion funding. Nor does it mandate abortion funding. However, the absence of an explicit prohibition on all types of abortion funding combined with the court-created law on abortion opens the door for abortion funding.

Also, note that few are now saying that the new law preserves the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment, in addition to preventing abortion funding, prohibits the use of federal money to subsidize plans that include abortion, something that the new law clearly permits.

Similarly, note that these same people are avoiding the very serious problem of mandating the payment of an abortion premium by some families.

In short, pay attention to what is not being said. Ambiguity could be purposely misleading or might actually reflect a lack of understanding about how a complicated piece of legislation ties in with years of sometimes complicated court cases about abortion.

Why did the bishops oppose the bill’s immigration provisions?

The final bill not only denies legal immigrants access to Medicaid for five years, but also prohibits undocumented immigrants from buying insurance for their families in the exchanges using their own money. People should never be denied coverage because they can’t afford it, because of where they live or work, or because of where they come from and when they got here. The basic premise of health care reform is that people should have insurance coverage because, in our system, emergency care is not a substitute for genuine health care. Forbidding immigrants from participating in the health care system unjustly denies a basic human right.

How does the new law fail to protect conscience rights?

For one thing, as discussed above, it forces some people to pay for another person’s abortion, even when doing so violates their religious or moral beliefs. But there are other problems as well.

Although the new law prevents insurance plans from discriminating on the basis of a refusal to participate in abortion, the law does not prevent government from discriminating on that basis. In fact, the Senate expressly rejected such a provision.

Except in the case of abortion, the law does not prevent the federal government from mandating health insurers to pay for procedures that might violate the religious or moral beliefs of insurance purchasers or plan sponsors.

Because the new law gives the executive branch some authority to regulate the selection of providers by health plans, these plans may also be required to exclude providers because they have a conscientious objection to particular procedures.

While the law provides for the non-preemption of some state laws regarding abortion, there is no comparable provision with respect to state conscience laws. The failure to include such a provision places those state conscience laws at risk.

Was Congress made aware of the bishops’ concerns about these three issues (abortion, immigrants, and conscience protection) before the final vote and their position on the final bill?

Yes. The bishops made their priorities and concerns known throughout the process. As late as the day before the House vote, the bishops let every member know that if the bill could not be fixed, they should vote no on the bill.

Were the pro-life members of Congress made aware that the executive order would not fix the bill’s problems?

Although the language of the executive order was not finalized and made public until shortly before the House vote on Sunday, representatives from the USCCB expressed on Saturday that the bishops’ legal advisors did not think an executive order could legally solve the problems.

Some say that the reconciliation process would not have allowed for these type of issues to be fixed. In light of that, why did the bishops keep pushing for a fix?

When it comes to Washington, if there is a will, there is a way. Parliamentarians gave a range of opinions regarding what could or could not be accomplished through reconciliation.

If, in fact, there was no way to fix these problems through reconciliation, then Congress should have pursued another course, even if that meant starting over. Political convenience or opportunity cannot justify violating fundamental moral principles.

Did the bishops secretly want health care reform to fail?

No. Catholic teaching states that access to adequate health care is an essential good. The U.S. bishops have supported comprehensive health care reform since World War I and have never wavered from that position.

Did the bishops secretly want the bill to pass, even with the abortion funding problems?

No. Catholic teaching states that the dignity of all human life must be protected. The U.S. bishops have opposed federal funding for abortion since before Roe v. Wade and have never wavered from that position.

The new law expands Medicaid coverage. Does that mean more abortions will be funded?

Medicaid is still subject to the Hyde Amendment, which means that only abortions for rape, incest, and life of the mother will be funded. The exception to this is those states that have opted include funding for all abortions with their share of the Medicaid responsibility.

Does the new law mandate school-based health clinics?

No. However, the law does provide new funding for the creation of school-based health clinics.

Would those school-based health clinics provide abortions?

No. School-based clinics was one of the few areas where Congress expressly prohibited abortion funding.

Does the new law fund sex education?

Yes and no. The new law appropriates new money for programs that teach “comprehensive” sex education that includes teaching about contraception. At the same time, the law also authorizes new money for abstinence only programs. The states, however, must come up with matching funds to access the money.

Does the new law mandate end-of-life counseling?

No. One of the earlier versions of the bill allowed Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling, but did not require it. Nevertheless, Congress removed the provision from the final bill. It remains to be seen whether end-of-life counseling will be considered an essential service that insurance companies would be required to include in order to participate in the insurance exchanges. However, even if that were to happen, it would just be a reimbursable service, not a mandate.

Where can I find out more?

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has detailed information about health care reform online at http://usccb.org/healthcare/

Adapted from the North Dakota Catholic Conference

How well is your community doing in the 2010 Census? With the Census Bureau’s interactive ‘Take 10 Map,’ you can track how well your community is participating in the Census by seeing what percentage of households have mailed back their forms. The map is updated every day as questionnaires are returned, and allows you to compare your community’s performance this decade to how well it did in 2000.  View the Take 10 Map online.

You can also see how Pennsylvania is doing.  View Pennsylvania’s daily participation rate online at the PA Census 2010 site; the Data Center has also been creating a weekly county-by-county map of census participation rates (just click on ‘Participation Rates’). You can view the map, download a PDF copy, or download the data for states, counties, municipalities or census tracts. This map will be updated every Wednesday while the Census is ongoing.

With the failure of Congress to include adequate statutory restrictions on using federal tax dollars to pay for abortion coverage, pro-life advocates use a different word to describe the new law – disappointing.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a legal analysis of the bill and the president’s corresponding executive order regarding abortion funding and conscience protection. The analysis concludes that the health care reform package violates both principles of the Hyde Amendment, a long-standing federal policy that says no appropriated federal funds can be used for elective abortions directly and no funds can pay for health insurance coverage of elective abortions.

The concern about direct federal abortion funding lies in the Community Health Center section of the bill. CHCs provide primary health services, including “family planning services.” A separate appropriation of billions of dollars will be made to CHCs without Hyde Amendment restrictions. Nothing in the existing law or new law stops these centers from providing abortions using federal tax dollars.

The concern about insurance coverage of abortion is in a different part of the bill. Some people will get federal financial assistance to purchase certain health plans. Section 1303 of the Act attempts to segregate funds within these health plans in order to keep federal dollars distinct from private funds used directly for abortion. However, the financial assistance will still pay overall premiums for health plans covering elective abortions. And any family having to buy such a subsidized plan—for example, because its coverage or provider network best meets the family’s needs—will be forced to provide a separate payment, on a regular basis, solely to pay for other enrollees’ abortions. The Act specifies that a plan including elective abortions “shall” obtain this fee from every enrollee, allowing no accommodation for conscientious objection.

The president’s executive order, despite its stated intent, does not correct these problems. The fact that an executive order was even considered in an attempt to clarify or limit the legislation points to its deficiencies. The Bishops believe that new legislation to address the abortion funding problems will almost certainly be required.

Tax dollars paying for abortion is an important question for our country; but is it really the main question? Are tax dollars paying for abortion more offensive than private dollars? Shouldn’t we really be asking why anyone should have to pay for another’s abortion? Why is this procedure still legal?

Sixty-seven percent of Americans polled last September opposed requiring people to pay for abortion coverage through their taxes. Clearly, people disagree with paying for someone else’s abortion. Even more encouraging, for the first time since 1995, a Gallup poll last May indicated more than half of Americans consider themselves to be pro-life and young people (age 18-29) are more pro-life than their grandparents. The minds and hearts of Americans are being converted to the truth about abortion. We are making strides.

Historic. Landmark. Unprecedented. Let’s pray that one day we will use those words to describe pro-life laws across the country that put an end to abortion, and protect and respect the rights of the unborn, once and for all.

PCC Column April 2010 by A.B. Hill, Communications Director of the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference – the public affairs arm of Pennsylvania’s Catholic bishops and the Catholic dioceses of Pennsylvania.

This project oriented internship involves research, writing and outreach about public policy issues of concern to the Catholic Church. Responsibilities will include, but not be limited to, writing newsletter articles, writing and designing informative bulletin inserts, research or other communications and advocacy activities.

Hours are flexible. A schedule will be developed to accommodate the intern’s class schedule and credit earning needs. The internship is not a paid position, but students will be compensated for travel expenses.

Please send a current resume to abhill@pacatholic.org along with a brief cover letter outlining:

1. Your availability for an internship in the upcoming terms (from when to when)
2. Your short-term (five-year) job goals upon graduation
3. Your goals for doing/learning during this potential internship
4. Your need for academic credit (or not) for the internship

Interviews will include a review of the student’s writing samples, portfolio materials and a discussion of credit requirements.

Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, made the call March 23, moments after president Barack Obama signed the Senate version of health care reform legislation approved by the House of Representatives by a slim margin, March 21. The statement was approved unanimously by the 32-member Administrative Committee of the USCCB.

“We applaud the effort to expand health care to all,” Cardinal George said.

He noted concerns about the legislation, including that “the statute forces all those who choose federally subsidized plans that cover abortion to pay for other people’s abortions with their own funds.”

Cardinal George pointed to President Obama’s executive order that said “it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.”

The need for such an order underscores deficiencies in the bill, Cardinal George said.

“We do not understand how an Executive order, no matter how well intentioned, can substitute for statutory provisions,” he said also.

President Obama and others claimed the bill does not expand abortion, Cardinal George noted.

“We and many others will accompany the government’s implementation of the health care reform and will work to ensure that Congress and the Administration live up to the claims that have contributed to its passage. We believe, finally, that new legislation to address its deficiencies will almost certainly be required,” he said.

The statement follows.

For nearly a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for reform of our health care system so that all may have access to the care that recognizes and affirms their human dignity. Christian discipleship means, “working to ensure that all people have access to what makes them fully human and fosters their human dignity” (United States Catechism for Adults, page 454). Included among those elements is the provision of necessary and appropriate health care.

For too long, this question has gone unaddressed in our country. Often, while many had access to excellent medical treatment, millions of others including expectant mothers, struggling families or those with serious medical or physical problems were left unable to afford the care they needed. As Catholic bishops, we have expressed our support for efforts to address this national and societal shortcoming. We have spoken for the poorest and most defenseless among us. Many elements of the health care reform measure signed into law by the President address these concerns and so help to fulfill the duty that we have to each other for the common good. We are bishops, and therefore pastors and teachers. In that role, we applaud the effort to expand health care to all.

Nevertheless, for whatever good this law achieves or intends, we as Catholic bishops have opposed its passage because there is compelling evidence that it would expand the role of the federal government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion. The statute appropriates billions of dollars in new funding without explicitly prohibiting the use of these funds for abortion, and it provides federal subsidies for health plans covering elective abortions. Its failure to preserve the legal status quo that has regulated the government’s relation to abortion, as did the original bill adopted by the House of Representatives last November, could undermine what has been the law of our land for decades and threatens the consensus of the majority of Americans: that federal funds not be used for abortions or plans that cover abortions. Stranger still, the statute forces all those who choose federally subsidized plans that cover abortion to pay for other peoples’ abortions with their own funds. If this new law is intended to prevent people from being complicit in the abortions of others, it is at war with itself.

We share fully the admirable intention of President Obama expressed in his pending Executive Order, where he states, “it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.” However, the fact that an Executive Order is necessary to clarify the legislation points to deficiencies in the statute itself. We do not understand how an Executive Order, no matter how well intentioned, can substitute for statutory provisions.

The statute is also profoundly flawed because it has failed to include necessary language to provide essential conscience protections (both within and beyond the abortion context). As well, many immigrant workers and their families could be left worse off since they will not be allowed to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges to be created, even if they use their own money.

Many in Congress and the Administration, as well as individuals and groups in the Catholic community, have repeatedly insisted that there is no federal funding for abortion in this statute and that strong conscience protection has been assured. Analyses that are being published separately show this not to be the case, which is why we oppose it in its current form. We and many others will follow the government’s implementation of health care reform and will work to ensure that Congress and the Administration live up to the claims that have contributed to its passage. We believe, finally, that new legislation to address its deficiencies will almost certainly be required.

As bishops, we wish to recognize the principled actions of the pro-life Members of Congress from both parties, in the House and the Senate, who have worked courageously to create legislation that respects the principles outlined above. They have often been vilified and have worked against great odds.

As bishops of the Catholic Church, we speak in the name of the Church and for the Catholic faith itself. The Catholic faith is not a partisan agenda, and we take this opportunity to recommit ourselves to working for health care which truly and fully safeguards the life, dignity, conscience and health of all, from the child in the womb to those in their last days on earth.

Congress continues to debate health care reform. The House passed a health care bill that prevents the federal government from funding elective abortions, and includes provisions making health care affordable and accessible for all. However, the Senate rejected this and passed a bill that requires federal funds to help subsidize and promote health plans that cover elective abortions, while forcing purchasers to pay directly for other people’s abortions. Congressional leaders are now trying to figure out how the rules of the House and Senate could allow the final passage of a modified bill that would satisfy disagreements between House and Senate versions. Final votes may take place as early as this weekend. The U.S. bishops continue to strongly oppose abortion funding, and call for critical improvements in conscience protection, affordability for the poor and vulnerable, and access to health care for immigrants.

Contact your Congressional representative today!  Thank you for speaking out against abortion funding.

The text of the letter follows:

March 17, 2010

Dear Representative:

The Pennsylvania Catholic Conference (PCC), the public affairs arm of the Pennsylvania Catholic Bishops, and the Pennsylvania Catholic Health Association (PCHA) representing Pennsylvania Catholic health care facilities, are taking the opportunity at this critical time to endorse fully the statements about health care reform which have been made by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  It is abundantly clear that the Senate bill now under consideration has flaws which are significant and which must be resolved.  Unless the concerns of the USCCB are remedied, PCC and PCHA join the national Bishops Conference in opposing the legislation. http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-043.shtml

Thank you for your attention.

Dr. Robert J. O’Hara, Jr., Executive Director, Pennsylvania Catholic Conference

Sister Clare Christi Schiefer, OSF, President, Pennsylvania Catholic Health Association