This pesky problem: babies under bus or not?

You can hear a king somewhere complaining to his courtiers, “Who will rid me of this [troublesome] issue?”  (See “Becket”)

In a letter to senators Wednesday, leaders of the influential U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reiterated their opposition [to Sen. Reid’s bill], contending the Senate language “violates the long-standing federal policy against the use of federal funds for elective abortions.”

Go bishops?  Not so fast:

A lot is being said and written about why national health care legislation is becoming a reality. The simple fact, available for all to see, is that the U.S. Catholic Bishops ensured passage of the bill in the House, enabling the Senate to move forward with its version.

Huh?

Like “progressive” strategist Robert B. Creamer, the Bishops believe that health care is a right to be guaranteed by government. This position has driven the debate and has rarely been challenged by Republicans. The debate over abortion has been mostly a diversion. Perhaps it has been planned that way

Thus spake Cliff Kincaid, persuasively, I am sorry to say.

As we were the first to disclose, Creamer, an ex-con and husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, emphasized using “the faith community” to mobilize support for universal health care by highlighting the morality of providing medical care to people in need. His book, Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win, emphasized that “We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right.”

Bishops are on same page:

Our approach to health care is shaped by a simple but fundamental principle: ‘Every person has a right to adequate health care,'” they say. They go on, “For three quarters of a century, the Catholic bishops of the United States have called for national action to assure decent health care for all Americans. We seek to bring a moral perspective in an intensely political debate; we offer an ethical framework in an arena dominated by powerful economic interests.”

So:

At least five lobbyists for the Bishops worked with Pelosi and Stupak on the deal that is now also predictably falling apart. Clearly, the pro-life deal was a ploy designed to keep the legislation alive.

Etc.

Read it and weep, all ye Catholics and others who with Dorothy Day are not ready to look lovingly or even resignedly to Holy Mother the State for health, welfare, and who knows what else.

See also Tom Roeser’s informed and pungent report cum commentary on “tricky Reid language” in his bill and the role of a “so-called pro-lifer” in that sorry development, including Tom’s closer in context of payoffs to compliant senators by White House paymaster Rahm Emanuel:

The Nebraska-Nelson windfall

spurred lawmakers from other states to complain “hey. Why should my state have to take the mandate and Nebraska gets away with it?” One hope is that this would lead to a flurry of lawmakers trying to get their states exempted which means that in the White House, the wily old paymaster, Emanuel, may have to throw up his hands and turn them down…either that or run the cash register repeatedly to buy everybody off…spurring the old hymn to take on a new meaning:

“Come, O Come, Emanuel!”

Which reminds me, it’s Christmas Eve.  Merry Christmas, everyone!

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Robert Nisbett  On 12/24/2009 at 11:03 AM

    I think entitlement is the heart of the health-care issue: Does a person have a right to medical care? To me, rights are those which government cannot restrict. For example, right to free exercise of religion is innate, and governments cannot take it away. They can outlaw freedom of religion and vioate the right, but the right exists regardless. In fact, the right exists even in the absence of government because it is God-given.

    The economic rights espoused by the left are different in kind. They do not restrict government of other citizens. They are the ‘moral’ right to receive something. Economic rights require government or other persons to do something to benefit an entitled person. Typically the benefit is funded through taxes. To me, an economic right is essentially a taking of another person’s property, via taxes, to be transferred to another.

    An economic right conflicts with a person’s right to property. That is, it supersedes the giving of goods or services via contract between two free individuals. The right to medical care requires one person to subsidize others through taxes or higher (mandatory) insurance premiums. Of course, I believe that widespread medical care is socially beneficial. But I object to being forced to deprive myself in order to provide it as a right (or entitlement) to others.

    The fundamental conflict between the rights as Founding Fathers understood them and economic rights as the Left sees them is, I believe, the central issue in the health insurance debate. Unfortunately, this conflict gets too little attention.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: