Comments on: Harry Reid kills health care reform

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:47:03 +0000

The only way you can make that argument, MM, is to use the Democrat math that assumes that all money belongs to government and they, through the kindness of their hearts, give some of it back.

Tony,

Would a tax break to an individual to allow her to buy abortion coverage be government support of abortion? Or would it just be allowing her to spend her own money?

By: Blackadder

Blackadder — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:28:56 +0000

David,

The limitations in Rust applied to the use of private funds as well as to the government grant.

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:54:23 +0000

$250 billion the government spends each year to make employer-sponsored health-care insurance tax-free. Since we all know this kind of insurance includes abortion, we can make the argument that the government is subsidizing abortion.

The only way you can make that argument, MM, is to use the Democrat math that assumes that all money belongs to government and they, through the kindness of their hearts, give some of it back.

It isn’t that way yet.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:38:25 +0000

Apparently Prof. Kaveny isn’t familiar with Rust v. Sullivan.

Blackadder,

Doesn’t Rust v Sullivan deal with the government spending government money? Stupak deals with a woman spending her own money.

By: Blackadder

Blackadder — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:07:54 +0000

Apparently Prof. Kaveny isn’t familiar with Rust v. Sullivan.

By: Stephanie Hunter

Stephanie Hunter — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:46:00 +0000

Reid must be careful in how he structures this bill, especially the public option part of the bill. If he does it wisely then it will succeed as it has here. http://cli.gs/23yYaM/

By: Will Abortion Kill Health Care Reform? « The American Catholic

Will Abortion Kill Health Care Reform? « The American Catholic — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:10:49 +0000

[...] Abortion Kill Health Care Reform? Is one of the most recent columns over at Vox Nova prophetic? Has Senator Harry Reid set into motion what is to be the death of [...]

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:01:45 +0000

Matt,

This seems more like a personal attack on me than a response to what I said.

If what you are saying is correct, my message would be translated as follows: “Caring about abortion at all simplifies matters, but doing things with no regard to their involvement in the killing of innocent children makes things much more difficult.” Would this make any sense coming from me, or anyone else?

And it is always ironic for consummate believers in the abortion regime to claim to be authorities on what is “the authentically Catholic way”.

If you mean to imply that I am a “consummate believer in the abortion regime” (which you clearly do), that is another personal attack.

By: phosphorious

phosphorious — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:39:26 +0000

“By “focusing exclusively on abortion” DN means “caring about abortion at all.” By “seamless garment approach” he means “doing things with no regard to their involvement in the killing of innocent children.”

Straw man.

The pro-life movement has no credibility. In Bush we had the most anti-abortion president ever, and a Congress that supported everything he did. And no move to abolish abortion was made.

The “pro-life” movement does nothing against abortion. But they will kill a health care bill that does not live up to their “standards.”

Enough.

By: phosphorious

phosphorious — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:48:07 +0000

“There can be no genuinely Catholic ethic which includes grave sin.

I agree. But “Abolish abortion before tackling any other moral problem,” which seems to be the modus operandi of the “pro-life” movement is not a genuinely Catholic ethic. It’s republican politics.

By: Matt Bowman

Matt Bowman — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:38:36 +0000

By “focusing exclusively on abortion” DN means “caring about abortion at all.” By “seamless garment approach” he means “doing things with no regard to their involvement in the killing of innocent children.” And it is always ironic for consummate believers in the abortion regime to claim to be authorities on what is “the authentically Catholic way”. But I understand why they use that strategy, since Catholics must be convinced that Evangelium Vitae is wrong in order for them to sign off on things like putting the present federal government politicians into power.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:15:03 +0000

I couldn’t let that comment go by unnoted. There can be no genuinely Catholic ethic which includes grave sin. There can be no support of evil in order to accomplish good.

Evil may not be supported, but evil (even “intrinsic evil”) may be tolerated. They are two quite different things, and I think when the issue is abortion, not a few in the pro-life movement believe that abortion may not only not be supported, it may not be tolerated.

Voting for a health-care bill that has fewer restrictions on abortion than one would want could very well be a case of tolerating evil with good cause, and it would be a matter of prudential decision.

Focusing exclusively on abortion simplifies matters, but the seamless-garment approach makes things much more difficult, and I think the latter is the authentically Catholic way.