In stunning reversal, CHA president Sister Carol Keehan withdraws support for Obama's

[Michie]

...Obama's HHS 'accommodation'

BIG NEWS: CHA tells HHS “NG on Accommo” UPDATED



heard the sound of E.J. Dionne screaming and ran to the headlines to see what had happened!

Sharpening an election-year confrontation over religious freedom and government health insurance rules, the nation’s Catholic hospitals on Friday rejected President Barack Obama’s compromise for providing birth control coverage to their women employees.

The Catholic Health Association was a key ally in Obama’s health care overhaul, defying opposition from church bishops to help the president win approval in Congress. But the group said Friday it does not believe church-affiliated employers should have to provide birth control as a free preventive service, as the law now requires.
​

Honestly, at first I thought I must have misread the copy, but Deacon Greg confirmed, it’s for real, quoting:

In a letter to the federal Health and Human Services department, the hospital group said the compromise initially seemed to be “a good first step” but that examination of the details proved disappointing. The plan would be “unduly cumbersome” to carry out and “unlikely to adequately meet the religious liberty concerns” of all its members, the group said.
​

This is, as the Deac says, “big news.”. If it seems written in benign fashion by the WaPo, and dropped late on a Friday in summer, Rocco Palmo explains why:

Continued- In stunning reversal, CHA president Sister Carol Keehan withdraws support for Obama's HHS 'accommodation'...

 

[Michie]

PDF: Sister Carol Keehan's letter to the Obama administration...

 

[Michie]

Catholic Health Association reverses course on mandate accommodation

05:12 pm | WASHINGTON D.C., Jun 15, 2012 (CNA/EWTN News).- In a call for broader religious exemptions, the Catholic Health Association has backtracked from its initial support for the Obama administration’s compromise on a rule that mandates employer coverage of contraception and sterilization.
Full story »

 

[Fantine]

I really admire Sister Carol--a smart businesswoman and a shrewd negotiator.

She recognized that she needed to support the Obama Administration to get health care reform passed--because overburdened Catholic hospitals in inner cities and rural areas would go bankrupt--as St. Vincent's in NYC did--without health care reform.

And so, singlehandedly, by giving them the support when they needed it, she might have saved the Catholic hospital system.

Then, mission accomplished and hospitals saved she started advocating for the little bit of fine tuning that would be necessary.

God bless you, Sister Carol! You were there when 45 million uninsured needed you.

 

[Mikey123]

Yeaaahhhh.......that's exactly what happened.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I love sister Carol Keehan.

She was on EWTN during the AHC debate, after the secular media misquoted her as supporting a woman's right to choose, which Raymond Arroyo used the misquoted statement in his news broadcast on the World Over.

Sister Carol Keehan, with all due charity and respect, corrected Raymond Arroyo, who accepted her correction.

However, the other guest,(don't remember her name) Arroyo had on, a woman from a pro-life movement, showed only disrespect and remained indignant toward sister.

Yet, Sister Keehan kept her charity and understanding and was an outstanding witness to Christ.

What impressed me also about Sister Keehan, is that not only was she on top of the issues of health-care, but she presented her experience in serving the poor who need health care, where Arroyo and the guest only experience was in political talking points.


Jim

 

[Michie]

A closer look at Sr. Carol Keehan's turnabout...

The news broke Friday that Sr. Carol Keehan of the Catholic Healthcare Association (CHA) has broken with the Obama administration's plan to force abortion drugs and contraception on religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals and universities that offer medical insurance.

The dramatic move was announced in a 5-page letter (PDF here) signed by Keehan and two CHA board members.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/sr.-keehan-turns-on-obama/#ixzz1y4emEgTb

 

[AMDG]

From the article:

It is unfortunate that this happened on a Friday, when the Eye of Mordorthe Media was turned elsewhere.​

Read more: Sr. Keehan Turns on Obama? |Blogs | NCRegister.com

Love the phrase. I guess I'm not the only one who has noticed that all news that may reflect negatively on Obama is purposely released on Friday or particularly on a Holiday weekend (when not as many people will see it in the media and it won't be as damaging). It's happened so often that it's gotten funny.​

 

[Fantine]

I don't think that Keehan's change of heart (or position) reflects on Obama at all.

I think that some will see it as a result of hierarchical pressure.

Others will see it as her position all along, a position she bided her time announcing until the beloved hospital system she led had its financial continuation protected.

I see it as a business decision by a smart businesswoman. She supported health care to save the hospital system; and now she's siding with the bishops to keep the health care system she saved "Catholic."

 

[Mikey123]

So your theory is that she lied. What a shining example.

 

[Fantine]

So your theory is that she lied. What a shining example.

My theory is that she may have had an inkling that Obama's proposal might have been an eyelash across the line of what Rome deemed acceptable, but she also realized that she had a fiduciary responsibility to protect the mutli-billion dollar hospitals, perhaps multi-trillion dollar hospital systems, from bankruptcy. She knew that religious orders like the Sisters of Mercy and Daughters of Charity owned real estate and businesses that might rival many Fortune 500 companies, and that, more importantly than the monetary value, they wanted to continue to serve sick people the way their foundresses had envisioned.

And so, despite the errant eyelash that crossed the line, she thought it was better to insure the future of the hospitals and then worry about the fine-tuning.

I am sure that in the long run, after the fine tuning is completed, as it undoubtedly will be eventually, the bishops will be grateful that her actions managed to keep the hospitals in business (and continuing to serve the sick) even if they would be a little more comfortable if those women religious didn't control multi-billion dollar businesses that put them more in the income bracket of Arabian sheiks instead of wearing habits made out of potato sacks like they may have done in pioneer days.

But no, I think she recognized that there was a stray eyelash over the line, but figured she could deal with it later, as she has started to do.

 

[Davidnic]

Interesting that even now the media is not covering this deeply. But they were all over it when she was in disagreement with the Bishops on the issue.

Much respect to her for standing against this no matter when it happens. It is something that needs to be opposed and opposition to it is good. She is in agreement with the Bishops on this finally. As to why she was not before...well, she was wrong. Now she is not. Let us hope it is a trend other Catholic institutions follow in such matters when the Bishops point out that something is damaging to the faith or, in this case, the freedom to be authentically Catholic.

It's not a hair over the line of what Rome would allow; it would be fully out of line. It is also, in a secular realm, against the founding principle of religious liberty.

 

[Mikey123]

My theory is that she may have had an inkling that Obama's proposal might have been an eyelash across the line of what Rome deemed acceptable, but she also realized that she had a fiduciary responsibility to protect the mutli-billion dollar hospitals, perhaps multi-trillion dollar hospital systems, from bankruptcy. She knew that religious orders like the Sisters of Mercy and Daughters of Charity owned real estate and businesses that might rival many Fortune 500 companies, and that, more importantly than the monetary value, they wanted to continue to serve sick people the way their foundresses had envisioned.

And so, despite the errant eyelash that crossed the line, she thought it was better to insure the future of the hospitals and then worry about the fine-tuning.

I am sure that in the long run, after the fine tuning is completed, as it undoubtedly will be eventually, the bishops will be grateful that her actions managed to keep the hospitals in business (and continuing to serve the sick) even if they would be a little more comfortable if those women religious didn't control multi-billion dollar businesses that put them more in the income bracket of Arabian sheiks instead of wearing habits made out of potato sacks like they may have done in pioneer days.

But no, I think she recognized that there was a stray eyelash over the line, but figured she could deal with it later, as she has started to do.

Sounds like one big pile of justification for lying.

 

[Fantine]

That's what it sounds like to you.

To Sister Carol, it sounds like the Church wanting to sack universal health care which would have resulted in the potential unemployment of 600,000 people (the CHA employees), the closing of 15% of the hospitals in the US, and, if you were really unlucky, the necessity of your next door neighbors with a two year old with leukemia (and no insurance) putting up heartbreaking invitations to a fundraising barbeque in every gas station in a five mile radius.

Which she weighed against the problem--the government insisting that employers cover a cost of approximately $50 a year per birth control user...

And of course she figured the miniscule cost being argued about would make it simple to eventually win the battle on---and, in the meantime, 600,000 would keep their jobs, hospitals would stay open, and distraught, heartbroken parents wouldn't have to barbeque chicken wings for hundreds in the desperate hope that their child with leukemia might survive.

CHA even suggested some acceptable solutions in its letter, and none of them are unduly burdensome on their employees or the federal government.

The government will cave. After all, what will Planned Parenthood supporters do if the government caves? Vote for Romney?

They'd rather die.

 

[Davidnic]

So did sister Carol email you and tell you the Church was trying to sack universal health care and that is what it sounded like to her?

Honestly, I am sure she is well aware the Church is not opposed to health care as long as it does not kill people. Seems she knows that since it is our teaching.

Everyone was very quick to say look at sister Carol siding with the Obama administration over the Bishops on the conscience thing when they Bishops brought it up at the start of the healthcare debate. Then again at the announcement of the "accommodation". Those who wanted to complain about the Bishops said, "this woman knows. She deals with hospitals and the sick...we should listen to her"

The Bishops quickly saw that the compromise was not real and was not enough. They said so within hours. Now, months later she agrees after seeing that those she trusted rather than the Bishops did not do what they said. They did not give a real exemption that she believed would be given. Her gambit was to trust the administration that abortions would not be funded and that a conscience exemption would be given to Church related organizations. And she laid that bet on one side while the Bishops demanded that it not be promised but be done in more than words.

So now, she has the courage to admit there is no exemption and echo the Bishops who call for changes. For the same changes she is asking for in her letter.

But everyone was saying how she worked in health care and the Bishops should butt out and she knew the lay of the land and such. Now it turns out she has to agree with the Bishops who were right all along.

So it is obvious now that all those who held her up as the person who should know because she was involved in healthcare directly...will now agree with her that the Bishops were right and a broader exemption (just like the one the Bishops have wanted all along) is necessary.

Right...I mean she is basically now saying the exemption is not enough. Just as the Bishops did. And asking for the same options that broaden it...just as the Bishops did. The difference is the Bishops saw right away that it was not going to happen. She tried to work with dishonest people who wanted to use her against the Church as a figurehead of a "reasonable" Catholic as opposed to the bad bad Bishops. But it was obvious that the accommodation that the Constitution affords us is not coming without a fight. And she has chosen to fight for it with the Bishops.

Or so it seems. So all those who supported her before based on her experience should do so now.

 

[Fantine]

Not that I know very much about military tactics, but aren't what you saying is that Sister Carol Keehan and the bishops chose to "attack" at different times?

Sister Carol Keehan, by timing her "attack" later, kept 45 million people from being uninsured and kept hospitals with large numbers of uninsured patients from closing their doors, going bankrupt, and laying off tens of thousands.

By choosing to time her "attack" later, she proved herself to be just as committed to preserving religious freedom, but proved to be a better tactician.

It would, after all, be a pyrrhic victory if there were no Catholic hospitals to worry about...

The woman is a master strategist, too. No wonder why she is CEO of an organization that hires 600,000.

 

[Mikey123]

Just because you keep saying it over and over doesn't make it true.

 

[Davidnic]

No Fantine I am saying Sr. Carol seems to have chosen to trust liars and the Bishops saw through the lie. Now she sees that she was played and is saying what the Bishops have said all along. The administration said they would extend conscience protections. The Bishops said show us. They showed they lied. Catholic Healthcare still trusted them even when they were given a narrow exemption that did nothing. So months after having a non-existent carrot dangled...now Catholic Health and their board see that they were lied to and the Bishops were right.

 

[Michie]

No Fantine I am saying Sr. Carol seems to have chosen to trust liars and the Bishops saw through the lie. Now she sees that she was played and is saying what the Bishops have said all along. The administration said they would extend conscience protections. The Bishops said show us. They showed they lied. Catholic Healthcare still trusted them even when they were given a narrow exemption that did nothing. So months after having a non-existent carrot dangled...now Catholic Health and their board see that they were lied to and the Bishops were right.

Exactly what I thought when I read the news about her reversal.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Davidnic

No Fantine I am saying Sr. Carol seems to have chosen to trust liars and the Bishops saw through the lie.

You're using info put out by the secular media, in an attempt to show Sister Carol is against the Bishops and with Obama.

Such was not the case.

Sister Carol was working on getting an acomadation with the HHS mandate, and the Bishops knew it, and were working from a different angle.

In other words, they were both working toward the same goal and at no time did Sister Carol oppose the Bishops, as the secular media would like us to believe.

Being her expertise is in Catholic Hospitals, which self-insure, she had more working knowledge on the issue than the Bishops did.

However, since the HHS accommodation did not meet both the Bishops and CHA agreement, the negotiations stopped.

Now she sees that she was played and is saying what the Bishops have said all along.

How you conclude this is beyond my understanding. She was never being played along, but was working from being directly involved with the HHS mandate and trying to reach an accommodation.

She made no statement saying she was mislead or played for a fool, as you seem to be suggesting here.



Jim