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

[Davidnic]

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

Any comment from the Bishops where they said they knew she was working form a different angle but was still on the same page as them. I saw stuff from them that highlighted that she disagreed with them and that she thought she could get an accommodation a different way and they disagreed that she could.

I do not expect her to admit publicly she was duped.

The USCCB, through then president Cardinal George, outlined their difference of opinions with CHA on health care reform before its' passage. Saying that the Bishops found the plan fundamentally flawed while Sister Carol and CHA thought changes could be made after passage. One of these issues was the conscience protections. So the Bishops (for reasons of the conscience protections and paying for abortions) opposed the bill. CHA trusted that changes would be made.

The Bishops were right. She was not. In March of 2010 Sister Carol directly disagreed with the Bishops saying:

“We are confident that the reform law does not allow federal funding of abortion and that it keeps in place important conscience protections for caregivers and institutions alike.”

Obviously that is not true, in particular that last part, which is the current issue. So saying she did not oppose the Bishops was not duped and was only working on things from a different direction is rose colored.

She was instrumental in swaying support. So much so she was given one of the pens that signed the law. She handed the administration a visible political wedge they could use to drive people away from the Bishops views. It was imprudent and a mistake. She did honestly think that changes would be made later, but that was beyond foolish given the track record of who she was dealing with. And it is mind boggling for such a savvy, intelligent and successful woman who saved many hospitals in the past and is very good at what she does...to have made this error. But she had blinders on to get the good parts passed and did not see the wisdom of the USCCB's prudence in the matter of saying show me first.

I am glad she is now on the same page that such changes will not happen unless CHA stand with the Bishops and stops giving the Administration a foil to use against the USCCB. She allowed herself to be used in that manner.

​

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Davidnic

Any comment from the Bishops where they said they knew she was working form a different angle but was still on the same page as them.

They never said she wasn't.

I saw stuff from them that highlighted that she disagreed with them and that she thought she could get an accommodation a different way and they disagreed that she could.

I saw stuff by others, not the Bishops directly. I think they knew that working both angles was better than theirs alone, especially when the mandate issue directly effected the CHA.

I do not expect her to admit publicly she was duped.

Why should she? She never fully accepted the mandate accommodation, but accepted the fact that the HHS was willing to work on an accommodation.

The USCCB, through then president Cardinal George, outlined their difference of opinions with CHA on health care reform before its' passage. Saying that the Bishops found the plan fundamentally flawed while Sister Carol and CHA thought changes could be made after passage. One of these issues was the conscience protections. So the Bishops (for reasons of the conscience protections and paying for abortions) opposed the bill. CHA trusted that changes would be made.

They first rejected the AHC because it didn't have the wording that would prohibit funding for abortion. They later accepted it, after the President put the executive order into it, prohibiting paying for abortions.

CHA accepted the AHC, because they don't provide abortions anyway and are self-insured.

The Bishops were right. She was not. In March of 2010 Sister Carol directly disagreed with the Bishops saying:

“We are confident that the reform law does not allow federal funding of abortion and that it keeps in place important conscience protections for caregivers and institutions alike.”

Actually she was right which is why the Bishops finally accepted the AHC act, with the President's executive order.

Fact is, if AHC goes down, the Bishops will be the first to protest that there is no universal health care coverage for people, especially the poor.

Sister Carol and the AHA will be the one's who will have to figure out how to provide health-care to people without insurance, and not put them into bankruptcy.


Jim

 

[Davidnic]

they did not accept the Executive order when the Health Care law was passed. They issued a statement saying it was not enough. The Bishops are for universal health care but they are not for how it was done here...allowing abortions (no matter what people want to say) and no Conscience protections.

Can you show where the Bishops ever said the executive order was enough. Because the last official summation: Setting The Record Striaght is the most recent and states they are unanimous in not supporting the bill and that despite the executive order it is profoundly flawed and allows for abortion funding. And the official response on the executive order specifically: link

It still says on the USCCB site in a commentary they have up:

Given the long history of court decisions saying that general health legislation like Medicaid must fund abortions unless Congress says otherwise, an executive order cannot compensate for this serious flaw, and in any case is constantly changeable (as the history of executive orders on the Mexico City policy and embryonic stem cell research makes clear).
The final law’s problems are also apparent from the short experience of implementing it so far. When the law’s transitional program for federal funding of health insurance for “high-risk” individuals (those who have pre-existing medical conditions) was implemented this summer, several states announced that the Administration had approved their plans for using these funds for abortion coverage – and at least one state had already begun to sign up enrollees for federally funded coverage that it said would include “elective abortions.” The ensuing public outcry soon led the Administration to issue new guidelines excluding abortion coverage. But the USCCB’s analysis, that such subsidies for abortion were not prevented by the health care act itself or the President’s ensuing executive order, was confirmed by Planned Parenthood (which had no problem deciphering this complex law) and by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
​

So the USCCB did not accept the Health Care law because of the executive order. Very much the opposite.

Also:

The public breaking of ranks by Catholic entities, whose decisions were often politically influenced, raises a question of governance in the Church that is still to be resolved. The bishops maintained their intellectual and moral integrity. They were not co-opted by either party – in fact, they often disappointed representatives of both parties who wanted the bishops as part of their coalition -- because they stayed at the level of principle, fostering all that could be good and condemning only what is morally evil. The fact that the bishops’ involvement satisfied neither party was therefore perhaps inevitable.
​

And there are dozens of other statements on the USCCB page that reject the law as is because the executive order does not fix the abortion problem and the lack of a conscience exemption.

So is there a USCCB statement saying the executive order made them support it? Because I am finding the opposite.

So, honestly, did I miss the USCCB statement that says that the Executive Order is sufficient. Because I am seeing exactly the opposite.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes, I stand corrected, they did not fully accept the executive signing order.


Jim

 

[Davidnic]

Yes, I stand corrected, they did not fully accept the executive signing order.


Jim

No worries Jim. Like I said, it does not matter when Sister Carol sided with the Bishops...they are now a unified front saying the conscience exemption is not enough. And that is what matters. People need to be free to practice the moral demands of their faith.


Their unity on this is something we can be thankful for, just like when they were unified against the use of embryonic stem cells.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

No worries Jim. Like I said, it does not matter when Sister Carol sided with the Bishops...they are now a unified front saying the conscience exemption is not enough. And that is what matters. People need to be free to practice the moral demands of their faith.


Their unity on this is something we can be thankful for, just like when they were unified against the use of embryonic stem cells.

Well, keep in mind that Sister Carol Keehan had originally opposed the HHS mandate as well, and even withdrew support for the AHC as long as that mandate was there.


To me, she is key to getting the AHC accommodation in place.

However, I do not trust the motives of Richard Doerflinge, whom the Bishops are giving total responsibility on the AHC issues.

The problem for me is, I believe Doerflinge wants the AHC to go down, regardless of the fact that it will not cover abortion, as both Rep Stupak (D) who worked with Doeflinge on his defeated piece of legislation, but accepted the wording in both the AHC bill and the executive rule, that abortions would not be covered.

I see a different agenda between Doerflinge and Sister Carol Keehan, and I hope I'm wrong about the former, in that it's politics more than moral principle at this point.

Remember, the Bishops want universal health care coverage. That is a fact and I believe if not for Doeflinge, they would've accepted the AHC, if they actually knew the wording prevented abortion coverage.

Here's an artiicle for those interested.

The Man Who Almost Killed Health Care Reform | Mother Jones




Jim

 

[Fantine]

I agree with you, Jim. I think it's tremendously chauvinistic to say that this bright, well-educated corporate executive was "duped" just because she was a woman. She has probably used the fact that men underestimate her to her advantage for years....and men who haven't paid much attention to her expertise have been at a disadvantage.

She knew exactly what she was doing. She was seeing hospitals like St. Vincent's in Greenwich Village closing all around her because of the burden of uninsured patients.

She couldn't quite figure out why people were worried about an HHS mandate to make them pay for birth control if the hospitals were going to go out of business because of the burden of the uninsured.

What was the point of trying to prevent the HHS mandate for a bunch of hospitals that were closing their doors?

She believed, I'm sure sincerely, that with enough pressure the HHS mandate on Catholic hospitals and universities would fall. I believe that, too. 100%.

I believe that because one side (the Church) has turned this issue into the hyperbolic catastrophe of all times....and to the government, it's just a pesky little detail.

And it's an election year. And while many Catholics may feel it's just a pesky little detail, and the hard-core Republicans will vote Republican anyway, there might be a critical mass of people, perhaps 1/4 of 1%, who really believe that it's the hyperbolic catastrophe of all time and will vote accordingly.

On the other hand, the Planned Parenthood supporters believe that Romney's election would be the hyperbolic catastrophe of all time, no matter what (can't say I blame them).

The Catholic Church is like the widow in the parable to the President. He's like, "I don't agree with her complaints for a flat second, but she's driving me crazy."
Something will get done.

 

[Davidnic]

I agree with you, Jim. I think it's tremendously chauvinistic to say that this bright, well-educated corporate executive was "duped" just because she was a woman.

good thing no one said that then. What was said was:

And it is mind boggling for such a savvy, intelligent and successful woman who saved many hospitals in the past and is very good at what she does...to have made this error.
​

Men and women get duped all the time. She was either duped, lied to or trusted people to fulfill promises that they had no intention of filling. Trusted that she could, by a relationship with the Administration where she supported them...get them to see reason. But the people she was working with did not want to be fair. Something the Bishops saw through and either she did not see through it or thought she could change it. But in the end she is asking for the same changes the Bishops have.

So men and women get duped, no one tied her getting duped to her being a woman. Intelligent people of both genders sometimes trust those not worthy of their trust. It would be sexist to infer that as a woman she is immune to being duped when others of the same high level of intelligence and success would not be immune.

No one is immune to being tricked or making a mistake...no matter what their gender.

People can feel it, it being religious liberty and the conscience mandate, is a pesky little detail. It shows how wrong people can be.

Like I said before..now that the woman who many lauded as the person who knew about health care when the Bishops did not...now that she is in agreement about the false and narrow accommodation, those same people will indeed admit that the Bishops were right first when they came to the conclusion about the accommodation within a day that Catholic Healthcare came to in months.

People who did not acknowledge it before can just say it. It doesn't hurt. The Bishops were right and now there is a united front that is helpful for religious liberty. Just as the Bishops, who were right, asked for at the start.

 

[Fantine]

David, perhaps you didn't make those comments. But you can look through this thread and see lots of "Liar!" "Lied to!"

What you don't see from these writers is respect for a businesswoman who is shrewd enough to want to see those businesses stay open long enough to have an opportunity to disobey a mandate....

Yes, disobedience, is an option. If you disobey you have a "fine." Doesn't say what the fine is.

The fine could be a slap on the wrist. The fine could be what it would cost for the government to give hospital employees birth control. The fine could be billions of dollars.

I think she would have paid the fine...

The fine won't be a trillion dollars....after all, how much did they fine BP for poisoning the Gulf of Mexico? Not paying for birth control isn't anywhere near the infraction that is.

 

[Davidnic]

David, perhaps you didn't make those comments. But you can look through this thread and see lots of "Liar!" "Lied to!"

What you don't see from these writers is respect for a businesswoman who is shrewd enough to want to see those businesses stay open long enough to have an opportunity to disobey a mandate....

Yes, disobedience, is an option. If you disobey you have a "fine." Doesn't say what the fine is.

The fine could be a slap on the wrist. The fine could be what it would cost for the government to give hospital employees birth control. The fine could be billions of dollars.

I think she would have paid the fine...

The fine won't be a trillion dollars....after all, how much did they fine BP for poisoning the Gulf of Mexico? Not paying for birth control isn't anywhere near the infraction that is.

Well BP is a corporation that is in bed with both parties. I would not take them getting of as a sign of a light fine for the healthcare system. I remember seeing that the fine was substantial for the healthcare law. I will have to see if there is info on it.

 

[Michie]

Catholic Health Association calls for change on HHS contraceptive mandate

The Catholic Health Association (CHA) is calling upon the Obama administration to broaden the religious exemption to the HHS mandate to include Catholic hospitals. The public demand marked a dramatic turn by the CHA, which had parted company with the US bishops by supporting passage of the "Obamacare" health mandate, and had not previously voiced opposition to the legislation. The CHA...

 

[Fantine]

The Man Who Almost Killed Health Care Reform | Mother Jones

Wow, what an article, Jim! Certainly sounds as if Doerflinger is a Machiavellian character.