Thread by RnMomof7.
WASHINGTON — Although churches have dispensed health care in Europe since the fourth century and in North America for at least 350 years, the Obama administration has just stepped forward with its own definition of what constitutes a rel i g i o u s -o r i e n t ed health institution.
Briefly, the legal definition to be used for the 2010 Affordable Care Act is that a truly religious hospital or clinic hires only those who believe in that faith and admits for treatment only fellow believers.
So-called Obamacare would define a religious hospital or clinic that — using an imaginary example — hires and treats only those who followed Swedenborgianism, or in another instance, supplicants of the Rosy Cross.
More to the point, the proposed rule poses a massive conscience problem for the more than 630 Catholic hospitals, and for Catholic health professionals, in the United States.
Congress has refused many efforts to pass such a proviso. President Obama himself pledged in the health care fight there would be no more assaults on freedom of conscience for religious institutions and professionals.
Yet this new restriction is in a regulation published by Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services that will become law after the completion of a comment period on Sept. 30.
In reality, no such hiring or admission limitations exist in any American hospital, dispensary or health insurance program — whether religious, government, voluntary or for-profit. If any hospitals abided by this severely narrow definition, they could in many states and municipalities be denied Medicare or Medicaid money, and federal construction loans.
“Religious gerrymandering” is what lawyers for the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called the proposed rule in a detailed comment filed with HHS last week.
The rule, 45CFR Part 147, centers on the mandate that all citizens buy health insurance by 2014. It requires, according to the bishops, all Americans to pay for insurance coverage of contraceptives, sterilization and medicines the bishops believe prompt abortions — processes that conflict with traditional Catholic belief. The bishops urged Obama to scrap the regulation.
Asked for a reaction, HHS spokesman Keith Maley said, “We welcome comment to ensure that we have struck an appropriate balance between access to preventive services and respect for religious beliefs.” It’s true that the bishops’ power is sapped because of ongoing scandals over clerical sex abuse worldwide. But answers to exactly why Obama chose this place in his pock-marked political landscape to open up a brand-new front in the culture wars with traditional Christians may be found only on the analyst’s couch.
Helen Alvarez, a law professor at George Mason University, thinks she has part of the answer. A circle of secularists that Obama has placed in the top ranks of HHS to draft new regulations, she says, just can’t help themselves.
“They live in a bubble,” said Alvarez, a longtime pro-life advocate. “This circle does not rate religion as a positive force. They don’t want religious [health care] providers in the public square any more. This administration is trying to function in every place where it can make it difficult for people to act on their deep-seated beliefs.”
Proponents would call it tolerance. But if the HHS rule is affirmed as written, the bishops and others will surely take it to the Supreme Court and their litigation will be piled on to the other challenges to Obamacare.
Some traditional Catholics and evangelicals are urging Congress to pass H. R. 1179, which applies freedom of conscience protection to the entire Affordable Care Act. Introduced in March, the bill has only 50 sponsors, none from Western New York. Neither New York Democratic senator supports the Senate companion.
Thread by me.
I have been fighting the international campaign to legalize and normalize doctor-prescribed/administered death since 1993, and this much I know: Once euthanasia is let in the door, ultimately, enough is never, ever enough.
Par exemple: Euthanasia activists often assure that no doctor will be forced to participate in medicalized killing. But I have been warning that this right of conscience is really an expedient, intended to give false assurance while the euthanasia consciousness gestates and matures.
And now the very pro euthanasia Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) has stated that all doctors have a professional duty to be complicit in euthanasia–either by killing legally qualified patients directly who ask, or if they don’t want to do the deed personally, by referring suicidal patients to a death doctor who they know will kill. From “The Role of the Physician in the Voluntary Termination of Life” position paper:
Patients, too, often have difficulty telling a physician they have an authentic wish to die. Physicians, for their part, are under an obligation to take such requests seriously. This also means that if a physician cannot or does not wish to honour a patient’s request for euthanasia or assisted suicide he must give the patient a timely and clear explanation of why, and furthermore must then refer or transfer the patient to another physician in good time. Vague promises, failure to transfer patients during absences, causing delays or indicating at a late stage or too late that the physician has reconsidered his decision to perform the euthanasia all demonstrate a lack of professionalism. The KNMG therefore calls on all physicians to act as they would wish themselves or their loved ones to be treated.
Do the Dutch really want doctors to have to choose between their careers and being complicit in killing? Are doctors to be punished professionally because they still believe in the Hippocratic Oath? Because while that is not yet Dutch law, by asserting that Dutch doctors have a “moral and professional duty” to refer, forced complicity is precisely where this is heading. Dissenting Dutch doctors need to forcefully stand against this encroaching tyranny.
It is also worth noting that if a patient does not qualify for euthanasia, according to the KMNG position paper, a doctor may refer him/her to how-to-commit-suicide literature:
There is no punishment for physicians and other persons if they provide information about suicide. Physicians are also legally permitted to refer patients to information that is available on the Internet or to publications sold by book vendors, or provide these on loan, and to discuss this information with patients. (30, 31) In fact, it is the physician’s professional responsibility to engage the patient in discussion if the latter voices an intention to stockpile drugs with a view to using them to end his life. The physician can, but is not obligated to, refer the patient to available resources and experts, including spiritual care providers such as a pastor, minister or humanistic counsellor.
So, let’s recap: It is unprofessional for a doctor to refuse to kill or refer for that purpose when a patient asks for euthanasia. But it is okay to help patients learn how to commit suicide if they don’t qualify for euthanasia under the law. Culture of death, Wesley? What culture of death?
And the moral of the story? Once the culture of death sinks into the bedrock of a society or culture, it brooks no dissent.