A Further Defense of Sr. Keehan and the CHA
Tantamergo calls my defense of Sr. Carol Keehan disingenuous, arguing that her organization, the Catholic Health Association, has supported the Democrat’s health reform legislation from the beginning. Of course, the CHA has advocated healthcare reform for longer than the Democrats have been in power, and given that such reform wasn’t a priority for the previous administration, it’s not surprising that the CHA has been more vocal now that healthcare reform looks possible.
Tantamergo writes that, “in the present political context, arguing in favor of 100% health insurance coverage for all Americans is the same thing as arguing in favor of Obamacare.” Well, not exactly. Some healthcare reformers like Dennis Kucinich oppose “Obamacare” for not being reform enough or a step in the right direction. Besides, from what I hear, “Obamacare” wouldn’t provide 100% health insurance coverage, so arguing for the goal of total coverage hardly translates into an argument for the pending legislation. One might, however, argue for this legislation as a step toward total coverage, as Sr. Keehan has done.
The CHA has also stressed that the current legislation requires “necessary legislative fixes,” including that the bill “should ensure that the final, overall health reform package will provide no federal funding of abortion.” The organization recognizes our social obligations both to those lacking adequate healthcare and to the unborn threatened with death. They emphasize the former because the former obligation is their purpose, their vocation.
Being pro-life doesn’t mean that one has to follow a particular program or policy for the promotion of life. Some pro-lifers seek to protect life through legislative actions, others through the courts, and yet others through the culture. In the realm of healthcare, some pro-lifers argue for better insurance policies, while others propose various government systems. Underlying every means debated by pro-lifers, however, is the recognized obligation we have to do what is in our power to promote life—an obligation that includes building a society in which life and heath are cared for. It’s our response to that obligation that makes us pro-life. When Sr. Keehan points to the fact that millions of people are uninsured, she’s not upholding the advocacy of insurance as the standard of being pro-life, as Steve Kellmeyer seems to think; she’s noting that our current means of providing healthcare is failing to meet our social obligation. As a society, we’re failing to promote life. Hence Sr. Keehan’s push for comprehensive reform.
Comments are closed.
The linked blog is yet another example of a point I make been making – people are using the unborn as to support their underlying distaste for a reform bill that they oppose on individualistic grounds – see the refences to “nationalized healthcare”. Clearly, since the healthcare expansion will be done through the private setcor, this person opposes any role of government. He/She doesn’t say what role, but the candidates are (i) indivodual mandate; (ii) restrictions on behavior of insurance companies; (iii) subsidies to help the poor purchase abortion. Now, to me, this sounds like a opposition to solidarity.
I find Steve’s argument rather interesting: “because health insurance is new,” it can’t be used as a pro-life position today or else we must say people were not pro-life until health insurance developed. It’s an example of temporal confusion. The issue is, as always, the dignity of human life; when there is an ability to do something which we could not do before, such as help people in comas continue to live, the duties change (or would he argue that there is no pro-life issues involved with questions of nutrition to those on life support?).
Yes, Henry, it is an odd argument to make. According to the same logic, we have no pro-life inspired obligation to use any new technology to save lives!
Kyle – Are you arguing in this article that Keehan isn’t supporting the current health care legislation?
Pinky,
From my post: “One might, however, argue for this legislation as a step toward total coverage, as Sr. Keehan has done.”
So what does your second paragraph mean? Either Tantamergo is right that Keehan is supporting the current health care legislation or he’s not. Everything in the original interview indicates that she does support it. So I don’t see what point you’re making.
As for the fourth paragraph, you may not have intended it to be an argument for a pro-lifer having the option to oppose this legislation, but it does allow that reading. Do you believe that?
Pinky,
Okay. I understand now. My first post in defense of Sr. Keehan focused on the claim that she held that people who opposed “Obamacare” were not pro-life. I sought to demonstrate why her words in the interview did not support such an interpretation. Tantamergo argued in response that my semantic argument was disingenuous and that Sr. Keehan really did mean what he claimed she meant: those who don’t support “Obamacare” are not pro-life. Tantamergo’s reasoning: when Sr. Keehan says that not giving healthcare isn’t pro-life, “healthcare” can only mean in context “Obamacare.”
The aim of my second paragraph in this follow-up post was meant to show that Sr. Keehan distinguishes between the two: the goal of universal healthcare and the means of achieving it. I also meant to show that the Tantamergo’s point about context didn’t make sense given supporters of universal healthcare who do oppose Obamacare. Looking back, I see my line of thought was not as clear and coherent as it could have been.
As to your last question, yes, I do believe a pro-lifer could oppose the pending legislation, which is, after all, a particular means of achieving healthcare. I have rather mixed thoughts about the bills, myself. Pro-lifers are not obligated to support this legislation, thought they are obligated, in ways open to them, to support comprehensive healthcare reform and to move our society towards universal healthcare. It is a failing that so few pro-lifers make healthcare reform a priority. I should note, taking a cue from Morning Minion’s analysis, that pro-lifers, if they oppose this legislation, should do so for good reasons, and if they intend to be instrumental in stopping this legislation, they then need to be instrumental in moving us toward universal healthcare in another way.
I should note, taking a cue from Morning Minion’s analysis, that pro-lifers, if they oppose this legislation, should do so for good reasons, and if they intend to be instrumental in stopping this legislation, they then need to be instrumental in moving us toward universal healthcare in another way.
And this is not what our bishops have been doing??? Whenever any social justice issue is raised, Catholics on the left cry out for leadership from the bishops. In this case, the bishops have provided almost daily guidance. And what have the usual suspects (NCR, America, Commonweal, and, again, Vox Nova) done? Belittle their efforts, exactly as you are doing right now in that comment above. When you joined Vox Nova, Kyle, I thought you would espouse a much-needed consistent ethic of life. With posts like this, you sound like just another partisan shill.
Ron,
All I said was that pro-lifers who oppose this legislation ought to work for universal healthcare in another way. I did not say or mean to imply that there are no pro-lifers doing precisely this! I even noted that I myself have mixed thoughts about the bill myself. Am I belittling my own efforts in so far as I dislike aspects of the bill? CHA has serious issues with the bills, as do the bishops, and they’ve spoken out about those issues while also noting the urgent need for reform. Am I belittling CHA in a post defending CHA?
The article says: The CHA has also stressed that the current legislation requires “necessary legislative fixes,” including that the bill “should ensure that the final, overall health reform package will provide no federal funding of abortion.” The organization recognizes our social obligations both to those lacking adequate healthcare and to the unborn threatened with death. They emphasize the former because the former obligation is their purpose, their vocation.
My reply: All Catholic organizations have a social justice obligation to the uninsured and to ALL people: born and unborn. When a Catholic Association emphasizes the former and gives this responsibility to the government–it ceases to be Catholic, it becomes Machiavellian, and in essence Marxist. Please remember that the Communists championed Saint Francis of Assisi for his work for the poor and the “masses.” The communist realized the appeal and the “goodness” of Saint Francis but in a communist country, all of their social justice actions are aimed to appease the government–there lies the EVIL of what the CHA is supporting. Obamacare is a means to lord over the people, to provide them with a social structure that promotes dependence on government and a permanent voter base for the Democrats.
Catholic VOCATION is oriented towards God. The Social Justive motives of the CHA has to be oriented to God. By itself, without Godly motives, it becames a trap for evil to spread. You can disagree with me; call my comments crap but nobody can escape the truth.
All Catholic organizations have a social justice obligation to the uninsured and to ALL people: born and unborn. When a Catholic Association emphasizes the former and gives this responsibility to the government–it ceases to be Catholic, it becomes Machiavellian, and in essence Marxist
The bolding is my addition. You accept private enterprise controlling people’s healthcare (the insured) but object to public action to aid the remainder saying that is the work of the Church.
Why is it good and holy for capitialism to do the work properly of the Church, not for public action?
Is Money, Greed, Profit and Capital your God? Or is God your God?