Abortion is Not Health Care

Bumper stickers with the message "Abortion is Not Health Care" have started appearing around the country. They could also say infanticide and euthanasia are not health care.

Our first child, Therese Marie, was born on September 29th the Feast of the Archangels. While in the hospital I met the mother of a child born prematurely and who had to be treated in the neo-natal intensive care unit. That baby was fortunate to arrive in the USA and not Great Britain.

Sarah Capewell’s boy Jayden came prematurely at 21 weeks and 5 days of pregnancy in an English hospital. Had Jayden been born 48 hours later he would have been eligible for intensive care treatment. Instead, following their medical guidelines, the British National Health Service staff allowed him to gasp for breath for two hours before dying in his mother’s arms.

Welcome to socialized medicine.

My wife and I saw some of the problems with the US health care system firsthand through the delivery and neo-natal care of our daughter. The fear of lawsuits leads directly to costly defensive medicine, including the ordering of unnecessary medical tests. At times it seems like the whole health care system is oriented towards the convenience of medical staff rather than the best interests of the patients. Costs are indeed very high.

On the other hand, we had no fear that the very best trained personnel and technology were ready and willing to care for the patients. For example, the USA has 27 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) machines, very effective tools for accurate diagnosis, per million Americans. The figure for both Canada and Great Britain is 6 per million inhabitants. One could go on about the things that America’s flawed system provides that are simply not available under socialized medical regimes, but the end results of both systems when compared are clear for all to see. Overall cancer survival rates after 5 years for American men are 66% and 63% for women. In Europe they are 47% for men and 56% for women.

"Health Care Reform should be about saving lives NOT destroying them" is the slogan of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ‘ campaign to oppose vigorously the current health care legislation before the US Congress. Abortion providers stand to receive millions of our taxpayer dollars for their deadly work if the bills are not properly amended. The right of medical practitioners to decline to perform immoral procedures because of conscientious objection is not protected in the current drafts. Bureaucrats will be giving the gravely ill and elderly voluntary "end of life counseling" and others will decide who gets life-saving treatments and who won’t, as we see already in Britain.

The legislation as it currently stands in the almost 2,000-page House bill is totally unacceptable from a pro-life perspective. Please join us in taking action to inform our political representatives of how you feel about the health care bills that will be voted on in the next few days (click here ). We must act and pray, asking for Divine deliverance from this impending disaster.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • c-kingsley

    “… is totally unacceptable from a pro-life perspective.”

    Not to mention flatly ILLEGAL from a constitutional perspective. Congress does not possess the authority to demand that you buy health insurance of any kind at all. This would be a new usurpation of power.

  • Mary Kochan

    I disagree that you should not be forced to buy health insurance. If we could let people who did not have insurance only have the medical care they were able to afford or that someone donated to them in charity and anything beyond that we just said “tough luck” — then fine, you don’t HAVE to get insurance. But that isn’t how it works. If you don’t have insurance, our society says you still have to get care. So somebody has to pay for it. We can’t just let the uninsured not get treated the way we don’t let uninsured motorists drive. If everybody HAD to drive, we would make everybody get car insurance, right. So how is this different?

  • c-kingsley

    If you want the government to have the power to force people to buy some product, you can change the constitution to grant them the power. I realize it’s out of fashion these days to care about limits on the King’s powers, but that would be the way to do it according to the law.

    There is some difference between this mandate and car insurance — for one, no one forces you to drive. Second, that is a state mandate, not a federal mandate. States have more powers than the federal government. (Since the states created the federal government, and granted to it some of their powers.)

    Charity is the job of Christians, not the government. I heard some statistic about the surprisingly high percentage of hospitals and clinics that are still run by Catholic orders. This is health care. Health insurance is not the same thing as health care.

    If you allow the federal government to control health insurance there will be no end of politics in it. The question of how developed a premature baby must be before he is worth treating should not even be discussed by politicians. If you are free to choose to buy health insurance or not, or which company to buy it from, what are all the unemployed lobbyists to do?

    I tell you, if I’m forced to pay for your health care, I’ll start sticking my nose in the way you live. Sorry, can’t have that dessert. Can’t ride that motorcycle. No more bungee jumping or ATVs. And YOUR grandmother is too old for that expensive surgery, but MINE is not. (Only a corrupt system would do something like that. Good thing there’s no corruption in our system.)

    The government doesn’t have the authority, and it will be a horrible disaster, no matter what the laws look like. Other than that, it will be great.

  • SanGabriel

    There are people right now who do not have health insurance because they can afford to pay out of pocket for their health care. While these people might be few and far between, they do exist. I have a family member who is one of them. Why should my tax money be paying for his family when they can afford to pay out of pocket if they are ill/injured, and they choose NOT to have insurance! While I agree health care is needed for the poor and for many of us who could not afford to pay out of pocket, but I don’t agree it should be universal adn mandatory. I also do not agree with government health care. My Aunt is from Holland, and while she can tell me many stories of how health care in her country is very beneficial for most, it is also very deadly for others. Her family has recently been discussing the fate of her mother…should her life be ended by euthanasia or should she be allowed to die naturally ( after all she is ‘suffering’, has dementia, and really doesn’t know anything going on around her)?? It’s heartbreaking to even think this is an option. I just pray the US healthcare system NEVER gets to this point.

  • Mary Kochan

    Requiring everyone to buy health insurance on the open market like we now do with car insurance would not result in government control anymore than there is government control over your car insurance. And of course it could be dome by the states instead of the fed. I understand that you don’t think it should be mandatory — everyone think that until he or she gets a life-threatening illness that he or she cannot afford treatment for. You don’t find that people just say, “Oh dummy me, I should have had health insurance. Oh, well, I guess I am just going to have to suck it up and die.” Instead, no, they suddenly want treatment whether they can afford it or not. And as a society we have decided that yes, they will be treated. On top of that, our church says that they must be treated. So, now we have a situation where this is the reality. And the question we are dealing with is not whether or not to let people die, but how is all this treatment going to be paid for.

  • momof11

    The Auto insurance that is mandated for drivers is liability insurance, which offers protection to other drivers from your actions. No one is mandated to buy protection coverage for their own vehicle unless it has a lien against it and then it is protecting the holder of the lien from your action. There is a difference.

    It used to be people paid out of pocket for most medical expenses…office visits, etc..and had hospitalization insurance for the big things if they had any insurance at all. This is a complicated issue and I don’t think anyone has the answer. But follow the money trail. Who will be paying, and who will really be benefiting? How many people are truly unable to get medical care in todays system. How many of the uninsured are uninsured by choice? How many charitable hospitals will lose donations when the taxes rise and the government lowers the charitable deduction rate? What level of care is a right?

    I’m getting weary of the whole thing. Tired of hearing about it, reading about it and thinking about it. Imagine others are too. Is this how totalitarian regimes take control without a fight? ARRGGHH!

  • SeanReynoldsNZ

    Living in a country with taxpayer-funded public health care, one of the comments that you will often hear is that all that any private company is ever concerned about is profits over and above service to patients. Hence, private insurers would rather cut costs rather than care for patients, and the government will provide the compassion and care that patients need from the dollars of taxpayers. What the proponents of the public health system forget is that a governments primary concern is with power.

    But it does raise a question: Why wouldn’t private medical insurers be equally insistent on supplying euthanasia and abortion services as opposed to real health care that looks after the well-being of a patient? After all, it is a lot cheaper to prescribe a lethal cocktail of drugs for someone with an illness that will leave them with serious long term damage than it is to fight the disease, or provide the long term care that they might need, and in the case of a baby who is not developing properly in the womb, abortion, or infanticide is cheaper than the long term care that child will need. Why would a private health insurer put life above profits? Why would a government put life above power?

    Both systems are inherently problematic in a world that has forgotten Christ, and has therefore forgotten the value of human life.

  • c-kingsley

    Mary — assuming a government made up only of saints and angels, then a government mandate to buy health insurance would not be government control of health insurance.

    Too bad for us.

    HR3200 (the precursor to the current HR 3962) specified the levels of co-payments that would be required. HR 3962, section 2401 sets up a “Center for Quality Improvement” to promote “best practices” in health care by doing four things: 1) identify existing best practices, 2) develop new ones, 3) evaluate both, and 4) implement them. What better way to implement their chosen best practices than to mandate that only the best practices be covered by insurance?

    Even if you ignore the fact that the federal government’s SOLE justification for this usurpation of our freedoms is the commerce clause (they have the power to regulate interstate commerce, therefore, they’re grabbing control over everything that can remotely affect interstate commerce), this bill is horrible in many ways. The National Right To Life Committee has been able to get through some of the 1900 pages of HR 3962. See what they think of it here: http://www.nrlc.org/AHC/HouseLetterHR3962passage.html In brief: its horrible and more horrible. Good thing you’ll get to pay for it, one way or two others.