Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > In The News > World News
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #61  
Old Nov 21, '11, 5:55 pm
LisaA LisaA is offline
Senior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 6,536
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnjsdad View Post
You haven't shown any correlation between taking a "TRUE pro-life position" and voting against "Obamacare". Did it ever occur to you that one can be pro-life and at the same time favor such insurance reforms as are enacted in "Obamacare"? That there isn't necessarily a moral exclusivity between the two? I say necessarily because the only way that voting for the health insurance reform would be morally objectionable would be if it allowed public funding for abortion -- something which did not happen with this law, thanks to Stupak forcing Obama to include the executive order.

Your response is a perfect illustration of what I've been saying about the tragedy of pro lifers being co-opted by one of the major political parties. Democrat Bart Stupak was a pro-life member of Congress. He also happened to favor passage of insurance reform. In partisan terms, that combination is unacceptable. In partisan terms, he became a traitor, he "caved" out of some venal ulterior motive that of course remains unclear.
gnjsdad, you apparently don't know what was in or not in Obamacare that was of concern to us pro life people. Nothing in Obamacare as then proposed prevented tax dollars from being used to provide abortions. The pro-life contingent thus requested a specific provisions PROHIBITING abortion being funded with tax dollars either directly or through the back door which was obviously what was intended. What Stupak did was accept a worthless executive order in lieu of a specific prohibition.

The 'ulterior motive' was pressure that he couldn't withstand. He was weak. Some of the Dems were bought off with goodies and some were arm twisted into voting for this law. They were led like sheep to slaughter. The executive order was a mere smokescreen that Stupak could hide behind because he couldn't oppose his fellow Dems even in such a critical issue. I do not doubt that he is a sincere man and that this pained him but he sold out, simple as that.

Lisa A
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old Nov 21, '11, 7:24 pm
gnjsdad gnjsdad is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2005
Posts: 4,731
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaA View Post
What Stupak did was accept a worthless executive order in lieu of a specific prohibition.
Executive orders are hardly "worthless". They are not easy to overturn. It's highly unlikely Obama will overturn his own order and no Republican successor would do so in this case.
__________________
The expenses involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work, demand that medical assistance should be easily available for workers, and that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge.

Pope John Paul II Laborem Exercens (19)
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old Nov 21, '11, 9:40 pm
LisaA LisaA is offline
Senior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 6,536
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnjsdad View Post
Executive orders are hardly "worthless". They are not easy to overturn. It's highly unlikely Obama will overturn his own order and no Republican successor would do so in this case.
It doesn't need to be overturned to be circumvented. And that has already happened. Abortion Queen Kathleen Sebelius has already established funding of a "high risk pool" that covers abortion services in Pennsylvania. Oh they can say that the funds aren't going directly TO abortion but as we know money is fungible and what isn't spent on one area is available in another.

This doesn't even consider the "free contraception for all" order that will then provide drugs that can cause abortion in the early stage of pregnancy. They are so determined to keep this hideous practice available. OTOH I think we are winning "hearts and minds" More abortion clinics are closing and not being replaced. Apparently the LAST such clinic in Santa Fe is closing right before Christmas. Perfect timing!

Lisa A
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old Nov 22, '11, 8:46 am
Suudy's Avatar
Suudy Suudy is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2004
Posts: 5,101
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaA View Post
Oh they can say that the funds aren't going directly TO abortion but as we know money is fungible and what isn't spent on one area is available in another.
I had this very same discussion back during the PP defunding debate, and others said they "don't believe this to be true." They apparently think the dollars given to them by the government have a different color and use than the dollars they get elsewhere.
__________________
Tiber Swim Team '05

"To love for the sake of being loved is human; to love for the sake of loving is Angelic." -- Alphonse de Lamartine
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old Nov 22, '11, 9:45 am
gnjsdad gnjsdad is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2005
Posts: 4,731
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaA View Post
Oh they can say that the funds aren't going directly TO abortion but as we know money is fungible and what isn't spent on one area is available in another.
Then the question becomes whether this practice was in place under Federal law prior to the enactment of "Obamacare". Was the Hyde Amendment air tight in not allowing Federal funds to go to abortion?

This article suggests the answer is no.


Quote:
Originally Posted by LisaA
OTOH I think we are winning "hearts and minds" More abortion clinics are closing and not being replaced. Apparently the LAST such clinic in Santa Fe is closing right before Christmas. Perfect timing!

Lisa A
That is good news indeed.
__________________
The expenses involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work, demand that medical assistance should be easily available for workers, and that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge.

Pope John Paul II Laborem Exercens (19)
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old Nov 22, '11, 9:48 am
LisaA LisaA is offline
Senior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 6,536
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suudy View Post
I had this very same discussion back during the PP defunding debate, and others said they "don't believe this to be true." They apparently think the dollars given to them by the government have a different color and use than the dollars they get elsewhere.
This is easily demonstrated by PP shrieking with hysteria if the abortion funding is threatened. When they claim that the majority of their services (funded by government) are breast cancer screenings, pap tests and other well woman care, when asked to then carve out abortion services into a completely separate organization so government funds cannot find their way in the door, they refuse. Similarly various insurance organizations and pools also refuse to remove abortion from covered services. This is exactly how Obamacare is and will in the future be able to fund abortion through the back door. Thus the executive order is worth little if anything. I guess they think we're all stupid and can't figure this out.

Lisa A
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old Nov 22, '11, 9:53 am
LisaA LisaA is offline
Senior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 6,536
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnjsdad View Post
Then the question becomes whether this practice was in place under Federal law prior to the enactment of "Obamacare". Was the Hyde Amendment air tight in not allowing Federal funds to go to abortion?

This article suggests the answer is no.
On that we completely agree. As long as the federal government funds programs (Medicaid) or organizations (Planned Parenthood) that OFFER abortion as a covered service, money will indirectly flow to support abortion, if nothing else by freeing up funds that would have covered non-abortion services. It's a shell game.

OTOH I believe the Hyde Amendment and other restrictions at least serve to reduce funding for abortions. So throwing up our hands and saying we give up is not an option either. We need to keep fighting, bringing sunlight to this horror and how our tax dollars are diverted to cover abortion services. The trend is in our favor and the public is becoming less and less supportive of abortion. I believe someday we will look at this the same way we look at slavery...

Lisa A
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old Nov 22, '11, 10:01 am
Suudy's Avatar
Suudy Suudy is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2004
Posts: 5,101
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnjsdad View Post
Then the question becomes whether this practice was in place under Federal law prior to the enactment of "Obamacare". Was the Hyde Amendment air tight in not allowing Federal funds to go to abortion?

This article suggests the answer is no.
I'm not sure what your point is. We all knew it hasn't been airtight. Congress knew it wasn't airtight. Which is why the entire discussion of "fungible" came up, and efforts to remove PP funding (ostensibly in the form of funding "women's health") from the omnibus bill. But as the article points out, Obamacare isn't subject to the Hyde amendment, and thus can provide direct funding of abortion services. As the article points out:
As expected, intense debate is often a major part of its reauthorization process. Obamacare, which does not include the Hyde Amendment, has helped reignite the issue, because as TheHill.com reports, “[What] we find in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA) muscled into law by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid is an array of abortion-expanding provisions, concealed behind a hodge-podge of artful exercises in misdirection, bookkeeping gimmicks, loopholes, and provisions that are rigged to expire.” (The seat-losing – o.k. he retired before he could be voted out – symbolic, Stupak-extracted executive order has no weight. Federal law trumps an executive order).
So yeah, the executive order is worthless. All his executive order can do is instruct the executive branch (responsible for enforcing and implementing laws) from making efforts to fund abortion. If some federal agency decided to fund abortion directly (through provisions in Obamacare), they'd have the support of the law.

And Obamacare goes one step further. As pointed out in the article, the Hyde amendment only affects HHS expenditures appropriated in the bill to which it is attached (as well as a few other agencies). Obamacare directly appropriates monies for the CHC, which is a separate appropriation from HHS (and the earlier funding that prohibits expenditures on Obamacare).
__________________
Tiber Swim Team '05

"To love for the sake of being loved is human; to love for the sake of loving is Angelic." -- Alphonse de Lamartine
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old Nov 22, '11, 3:56 pm
Swiss Guy's Avatar
Swiss Guy Swiss Guy is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: May 14, 2011
Posts: 4,000
Religion: Christian in the Holy Catholic Church
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Everyone: Just vote Republican, and we won't have this problem. Bcuz politicians have fall back on their party platform if they are in a jam, or else odds are there party won't like them. Although too bad there aren't more Zell Millers around......
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old Nov 22, '11, 4:15 pm
JimG JimG is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: May 23, 2004
Posts: 22,334
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Here is what the USCCB said about the use of the executive order instead of the Stupak Amendment which had been promised:

“PPACA Violates Both Principles of the Hyde Amendment, and the
Accompanying Executive Order Does Not Correct Those Problems”

http://www.usccb.org/_cs_upload/7977_1.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old Nov 22, '11, 4:32 pm
Swiss Guy's Avatar
Swiss Guy Swiss Guy is offline
Regular Member
Prayer Warrior
 
Join Date: May 14, 2011
Posts: 4,000
Religion: Christian in the Holy Catholic Church
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swiss Guy View Post
If no one had voted for Obama or all of the anti-life Democrats in Congress, we wouldn't even be talking about this. But since this happened, I agree that if it wasn't for Stupak, we could possibly have public funding for abortion.
I'm retracting my statement. I got my info from wikipedia, so, you can see where I was coming from.
__________________



Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old Nov 22, '11, 4:41 pm
gnjsdad gnjsdad is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2005
Posts: 4,731
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suudy View Post
I'm not sure what your point is. We all knew it hasn't been airtight. Congress knew it wasn't airtight. Which is why the entire discussion of "fungible" came up, and efforts to remove PP funding (ostensibly in the form of funding "women's health") from the omnibus bill. But as the article points out, Obamacare isn't subject to the Hyde amendment, and thus can provide direct funding of abortion services. As the article points out:
As expected, intense debate is often a major part of its reauthorization process. Obamacare, which does not include the Hyde Amendment, has helped reignite the issue, because as TheHill.com reports, “[What] we find in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA) muscled into law by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid is an array of abortion-expanding provisions, concealed behind a hodge-podge of artful exercises in misdirection, bookkeeping gimmicks, loopholes, and provisions that are rigged to expire.” (The seat-losing – o.k. he retired before he could be voted out – symbolic, Stupak-extracted executive order has no weight. Federal law trumps an executive order).
So yeah, the executive order is worthless. All his executive order can do is instruct the executive branch (responsible for enforcing and implementing laws) from making efforts to fund abortion. If some federal agency decided to fund abortion directly (through provisions in Obamacare), they'd have the support of the law.

And Obamacare goes one step further. As pointed out in the article, the Hyde amendment only affects HHS expenditures appropriated in the bill to which it is attached (as well as a few other agencies). Obamacare directly appropriates monies for the CHC, which is a separate appropriation from HHS (and the earlier funding that prohibits expenditures on Obamacare).
It's obvious you are more well-versed in the details here than I am.

What it boils down to is that there were ways to circumvent the Hyde Amendment (which I did not know before) and there are ways to circumvent Obama's executive order. Whether the EO will result in an increased number of abortions than would othewise have taken place prior to "Obamacare" remains to be seen. I'm willing to allow for that possibility, and given the unabated desire in American culture for resort to abortion, I wouldn't be surprised if it ultimately turned out to be true. Let's pray not.

As to my point, let's also not throw under the bus those who fought to the best of their ability to keep whatever protections were available through the Hyde Amendment in the new law. I'm speaking of course of Bart Stupak and the other pro life Democrats. Now we know Stupak has been vilified here, IMO, completely unjustifiably. He was a Democrat. He favored the health insurance reform. He was also pro life. That combination of views is perfectly compatible with faithfulness to the Church. IMO, the level of vituperation to which he was subjected by fellow pro lifers far outweighed any potential damages done with the new law from a pro life perspective.

In fact, it seems Stupak's big crime was that he failed to become a Republican so that the new law could not come into efffect. We know the Republicans are hopping mad at the enactment of the new law for reasons which have nothing to do with abortion, so I don't buy that abortion was the main reason for the derision he is getting. Too many pro life Catholics, are, in my opinion, thinking like Republican partisans rather than Catholics and that isn't a good thing.

Stupak tried to the best of his ability to insure that every existing legal protection for the unborn was incorporated into the new legislation, which was inevitably going to pass BTW. Did he fail? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The very least he deserves from Catholics who believe strongly in charity is the benefit of the doubt. It is disgraceful that a former pro life legislator is being so viciously attacked by other pro lifers. Lord knows he's gotten enough scorn from the pro choicers, as the OP makes plain. If this is the way we treat our own, no wonder they are laughing at us.
__________________
The expenses involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work, demand that medical assistance should be easily available for workers, and that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge.

Pope John Paul II Laborem Exercens (19)
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old Nov 22, '11, 5:55 pm
LisaA LisaA is offline
Senior Member
Book Club Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 6,536
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnjsdad View Post
As to my point, let's also not throw under the bus those who fought to the best of their ability to keep whatever protections were available through the Hyde Amendment in the new law. I'm speaking of course of Bart Stupak and the other pro life Democrats. Now we know Stupak has been vilified here, IMO, completely unjustifiably. He was a Democrat. He favored the health insurance reform. He was also pro life. That combination of views is perfectly compatible with faithfulness to the Church. IMO, the level of vituperation to which he was subjected by fellow pro lifers far outweighed any potential damages done with the new law from a pro life perspective.

In fact, it seems Stupak's big crime was that he failed to become a Republican so that the new law could not come into efffect. We know the Republicans are hopping mad at the enactment of the new law for reasons which have nothing to do with abortion, so I don't buy that abortion was the main reason for the derision he is getting. Too many pro life Catholics, are, in my opinion, thinking like Republican partisans rather than Catholics and that isn't a good thing.

Stupak tried to the best of his ability to insure that every existing legal protection for the unborn was incorporated into the new legislation, which was inevitably going to pass BTW. Did he fail? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The very least he deserves from Catholics who believe strongly in charity is the benefit of the doubt. It is disgraceful that a former pro life legislator is being so viciously attacked by other pro lifers. Lord knows he's gotten enough scorn from the pro choicers, as the OP makes plain. If this is the way we treat our own, no wonder they are laughing at us.
I appreciate your call for charity and while Stupak does not deserve hateful personal attacks, I think you need to understand that he originally proposed a very specific provision to be included in Obamacare that would have limited government funding of abortions that were clearly intended by abortion proponents to be included therein. Stupak originally held out (along with his group of supposedly pro life Democrats) for this specific provision and threatened to vote no if it were not included. With some arm twisting, Stupak backed off of his original demand and settled for what is clearly an ineffective Executive Order.

Whatever his motivations, the reality is that he is not a stupid or uneducated man. He knew that the Executive Order would not have the same power to prevent government funding of abortion. He capitulated and as a result we have Obamacare with all its numerous problems, its abortion funding, its demands to provide "free" birth control including drugs that cause abortion (not even getting into the disaster this is overall).

Stupak could have held out for the original demand and would have been a hero. Maybe the law would not have passed. Maybe it would have been changed and improved after the original failure. What we got due to Stupak's capitulation is the worst of all worlds. I suspect he greatly regrets his action. I do too.

Lisa A
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old Nov 22, '11, 11:10 pm
ishii ishii is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2006
Posts: 8,335
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnjsdad View Post
In fact, it seems Stupak's big crime was that he failed to become a Republican so that the new law could not come into efffect. We know the Republicans are hopping mad at the enactment of the new law for reasons which have nothing to do with abortion, so I don't buy that abortion was the main reason for the derision he is getting. Too many pro life Catholics, are, in my opinion, thinking like Republican partisans rather than Catholics and that isn't a good thing.
.
Just a possiblity, but perhaps the anger at Stupak's capitulation has less to do with Catholics thinking like partisan Republicans and more to do with anger and frustration with having the most pro-abortion president in Obama and no real opposition to him in his own party.

Ishii
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old Nov 23, '11, 7:27 am
estesbob's Avatar
estesbob estesbob is online now
Forum Elder
Prayer Warrior
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: May 8, 2005
Posts: 38,355
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: White House Knew Obamacare Abortion Funding "Ban" a Sham

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnjsdad View Post
It's obvious you are more well-versed in the details here than I am.

What it boils down to is that there were ways to circumvent the Hyde Amendment (which I did not know before) and there are ways to circumvent Obama's executive order. Whether the EO will result in an increased number of abortions than would othewise have taken place prior to "Obamacare" remains to be seen. I'm willing to allow for that possibility, and given the unabated desire in American culture for resort to abortion, I wouldn't be surprised if it ultimately turned out to be true. Let's pray not.

As to my point, let's also not throw under the bus those who fought to the best of their ability to keep whatever protections were available through the Hyde Amendment in the new law. I'm speaking of course of Bart Stupak and the other pro life Democrats. Now we know Stupak has been vilified here, IMO, completely unjustifiably. He was a Democrat. He favored the health insurance reform. He was also pro life. That combination of views is perfectly compatible with faithfulness to the Church. IMO, the level of vituperation to which he was subjected by fellow pro lifers far outweighed any potential damages done with the new law from a pro life perspective.

In fact, it seems Stupak's big crime was that he failed to become a Republican so that the new law could not come into efffect. We know the Republicans are hopping mad at the enactment of the new law for reasons which have nothing to do with abortion, so I don't buy that abortion was the main reason for the derision he is getting. Too many pro life Catholics, are, in my opinion, thinking like Republican partisans rather than Catholics and that isn't a good thing.

Stupak tried to the best of his ability to insure that every existing legal protection for the unborn was incorporated into the new legislation, which was inevitably going to pass BTW. Did he fail? Perhaps. Perhaps not. The very least he deserves from Catholics who believe strongly in charity is the benefit of the doubt. It is disgraceful that a former pro life legislator is being so viciously attacked by other pro lifers. Lord knows he's gotten enough scorn from the pro choicers, as the OP makes plain. If this is the way we treat our own, no wonder they are laughing at us.
The best of his ability would have to vote against ObamaCare, as every single pro-life Republican did Nobody threw him under the bus. He betrayed his constituency and paid the price for it There is no courage involved in putting Party before Faith
__________________
We ought to speak, shout out against injustices, with confidence and without fear. We proclaim the principles of the Church, the reign of love, without forgetting that it is also a reign of justice.

Miguel Agustin Pro
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > In The News > World News

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8257Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: GLam8833
5018CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: UpUpAndAway
4345Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: lsbar
4029OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: B79
3835SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3570Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: RJB
3230Poems and Reflections
Last by: tonyg
3206Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Chast Forever
3132Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
3048For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: tammany



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:16 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.