jump to navigation

More on CHA and Sr. Keehan March 11, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, General Catholic, scandals, Society.
trackback

I’ve gotten criticised over at Vox Nova, that coyly named site, over my comments on Sr. Keehan.  Sr. Keehan said this:

“For us as Catholics it’s very hard to be pro-life when we don’t give many many mothers who are pregnant care. Or we don’t give pediatric care, well baby care or sick baby care to children. We have nine million uninsured children in this country. That’s not pro-life.”

So, Sr. Keehan equates children being uninsured with being anti-life, in some way.   Her figures are dubious, the numbers thrown around by the supporters of Obamacare have already been taken apart elsewhere.   I have no idea what she means by “it’s hard to be pro-life when we don’t give many mothers who are pregnant care.”   First of all, who isn’t giving mother’s care?  Those opposed to a government run single payer system, which has been CHA’s goal all along?  What about those opposed to a single payer system, who generously support pro-life non-abort crisis pregnancy centers, like White Rose?  Are they still pro-life?  Who put Sr. Keehan in charge of deciding what is pro-life or not?  Does the fact that government run healthcare, everywhere in the world, rations care, and thus may wind up forcing abortions on women who have a particularly difficult pregnancy because it’s  not cost effective to do otherwise even enter into her thinking?  Is it pro-life to have a government run system that only gives palliative care to large swaths of very sick seniors, because their high cost health care drains the government run system of limited funds? 

Those who argue semantics that “Sr. Keehan didn’t say that those who oppose Obama’s nationalized health care plan are not pro-life” are being disingenuous.  From the beginning, CHA has most definitely supported whatever you want to call Obamacare – I have received mailings from CHA advocating that I contact my congressman insisting they pass the pending legislation, at periods of time when that legislation contained language massively expanding abortion in this country (this began last July, continued in August and September, and into October.  This effort is still ongoing).  Sr. Keehan has made it plain that CHA seeks legislation that will provide 100% coverage for all Americans.  The preferred CHA way of achieving this is with a government run system, and the only way a government run system can cover everyone  is to limit treatment options.  Sr. Keehan and CHA have repeatedly refused to address this fundamental factor of government run health care, and tend to act as if it doesn’t exist. 

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.  Go to the CHA website, and see their “photo gallery,” using the same “We can’t wait for health care reform” message that the Obama administration and the Democratic National Committee have been using for months.  CHA is completely wrapped up in promoting the administration’s agenda when it comes to health insurance takeover reform, and to argue otherwise is to be disingenuous.  Their entire website is like a giant lobbying program for the proposed health care legislation.  When Sr. Keehan says “We have nine million uninsured children in this country. That’s not pro-life,” the message is, “If you don’t get on board with nationalized health care (Obamacare), you’re not pro-life.”  She has to know that’s the message that will be received.  And in her desperation, she said it anyway.

CHA and Sr. Keehan have obstinately refused to address the fact that they have a very powerful vested interest in Obamacare being passed into law – the many billions in additional revenue they will receive as one of the major medical providers under such a system. They have also not addressed the fact that CHA and its affiliate organizations, nominal charities, have  made billions in profits, largely from government contracts, in recent years.  As I’ve related before, many Catholic charitable groups have come to depend on government funding.  They like that government funding, because it’s always there and it’s alot less hassle to raise.  It’s not undependable like private donations, which vary according to the performance of the organization and market forces.  Just days after starting a campaign to promote Obamacare, Catholic Charities received a $100 million grant from the federal government.  I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. 

All this is just smoke to confuse the point.  Sr. Keehan is attempting to promote doubt in the minds of very faithful Catholics that their opposition to this prudential issue of “social justice” is somehow bound up in issues of grave moral concern like being against abortion.  That is a despicable tactic.  Catholics are free to agree or disagree on issues of social justice, to determine what they think is the best way to provide for the broad range of needs represented by that cliched term.  Catholics are not free to decide on their own whether abortion or euthanasia are grave moral concerns – they have been defined as always and everywhere evil by the Church.  What those who so strongly support nationalized health care often do, however, is to try to apply the completely discredited “seemless garment” argument to allow them to support an intrinsic evil, like abortion, if it gets them want they want, a socialized medical system, and eventually, a socialistic economy in this country.

This is no “meme.”  And Sr. Keehan’s jedi mind trick won’t work.

About these ads

Comments

1. Steve Kellmeyer - March 11, 2010

Catholics have only been able to get insurance in the US for the last century or so, since private medical insurance didn’t exist for thousands of years preceding.

If insurance is the gauge of being pro-life, does that mean the Church has only become pro-life in the last 100 years, and then only because capitalistic market forces recently created this “inalienable right?”

I don’t doubt that it’s hard for Sister Keehan to be pro-life. In fact, there’s no evidence she’s managed to reach that height.

2. A Further Defense of Sr. Keehan and the CHA « Vox Nova - March 12, 2010

[...] 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 [...]

3. Teresa - March 12, 2010

After reading both your assessment and the assessmant over at Vox Nova, I agree with yours. The Catholic agencies and the Catholic Church (maybe not as a whole but in the United States) has too much of a vested interest to really stand up for the pro-life cause and oppose Obamacare. They are too indebted to our government for monetary funds that they are leading their flock astray all for a false hope, and a false reality that there will not be a de-valuing of life and the pro-life cause under a government takeover of our health care system. And, Obamacare would do just that, and dramatically.

tantamergo - March 12, 2010

Thanks for the comment, and support. I haven’t been over to Vox Nova to read their rebuttal of my rebuttal, yet. I shall try to do that later today.

Do you mind if I add your blog to my roll?

4. Teresa - March 12, 2010

Tantamergo,

That sounds great! I will add your blog to my blogroll also. I am glad to support a fellow Catholic. God Bless!!

I follow his personal blog as well and left comments on his first defense of Sr. Keehan. I am planning on writing a blog post and will link your blog, Vox Nova’ s response, and his personal blog with his first defense of Sr. Keehan as well.

5. LarryD - March 12, 2010

I used to read Vox Nova, but its leftist leanings would unbalance my middle ear and I would fall out of my seat.

Though I do read prog-Cath blogs for a good laugh now and then1

tantamergo - March 13, 2010

I saw what you found on Open Tabernacle – yikes! I was going to link to it but ran out of time, I’ll try later tonight.

I went to the site – frightening. Especially the pic of the she-priests. Oh well, average age was about 70. Rage, rage against the dying of the light!

6. Steve Kellmeyer - March 12, 2010

And my ribs would hurt too.
No one should be forced to laugh like that.
It’s torture.

7. Teresa - March 14, 2010

I just posted a response on my site which is in support of your assessment of Sr. Keehan’s statements and critical of Kyle’s defense of Sr. Keehan.

http://teresamerica.blogspot.com/2010/03/sr-keehan-controversy-so-im-not-pro.html

tantamergo - March 15, 2010

Thanks, Teresa! I added you to my blogroll.

8. Archbishop Naumann on CHA and Sr. Keehan « A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics - March 17, 2010

[...] read the full statement.  I think the good Archbishop has been reading my blog, because his comments so closely mirror my own.  Sr. Keehan and CHA are being disingenuous, or [...]


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 414 other followers

%d bloggers like this: