More on CHA and Sr. Keehan March 11, 2010Posted by tantamergo in Abortion, General Catholic, scandals, Society.
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.