US Senate health-care bill is ‘unacceptable,’ says bishops’ spokesman

US Senate health-care bill is ‘unacceptable,’ says bishops’ spokesman

[Obamacare with or without(!?) the Obamabortion-mandate is preferable to any Trump or Republican overhaul]

Catholic World News – June 23, 2017

Bishop Frank Dewane, who chairs the US bishops domestic-policy committee, has described a health-care reform proposal in the US Senate as “unacceptable as written.”

Bishop Dewane criticized that the bill’s cap on Medicaid funding, saying that the result would “provide even less to those in need than the House bill.” He added that the bills should “improve real access for immigrants in health care policy.” As it stands, he said, the legislation would “cause disturbing damage to human beings served by the social safety net.”

The bishop did praise the Senate bill for “recognizing that abortion is not health care,” and said that if [emphasis added] that provision survived, it would “correct a flaw in the Affordable Care Act.”

“An acceptable health care system provides access to all, regardless of their means,” Bishop Dewane stated. “Such a health care system must protect conscience rights, as well as extend to immigrant families.”

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2017/06/24/us-senate-health-care-bill-is-unacceptable-says-bishops-spokesman/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

One comment on “US Senate health-care bill is ‘unacceptable,’ says bishops’ spokesman

  1. Pro-Life Advocates Worry GOP Will Cave on Planned Parenthood

    Provision to cut abortion-provider funding may not withstand procedural challenge, pressure from moderates

    Hostile Reaction Foretells Uphill Climb for GOP Health Bill

    Several conservative senators [five at last count], activists quick to oppose Senate Obamacare replacement, others lukewarm

    by Brendan Kirby | Updated 23 Jun 2017

    The Senate bill to repeal Obamacare includes a provision to cut off funds to Planned Parenthood for one year, but some pro-life groups fear it will not survive to passage.

    It already is against the law for federal funds to be used for abortions. The Senate bill would prohibit health organizations from receiving federal reimbursements for other services if they provide abortions, except to save the life of the mother or if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.

    The bill does not mention Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest abortion provider, but a Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House of Representatives version of the health bill determined it was the only organization that would be affected.

    The Family Research Council and the Susan B. Anthony List urged Congress on Friday to direct federal funds to community health centers that deliver the same non-abortion services that Planned Parenthood offers. But they expressed concern that the Planned Parenthood provision might not survive challenges from moderate Republicans or the arcane Senate rules that limit which measures can avoid a Senate filibuster.

    “The Senate discussion draft includes these pro-life priorities, but we remain very concerned that either of these priorities could be removed from the bill for procedural or political reasons,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins and Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said a joint statement. “We are working closely with our pro-life allies in the Senate to prevent this from happening as it could result in our opposition. We are confident that the pro-life Senate will ultimately move forward with our pro-life priorities intact.”

    Under Senate rules, laws connected to “budget reconciliation” need only a simple majority. Most other bills can be blocked by 41 senators through the filibuster. Democrats likely will appeal to the Senate parliamentarian, arguing that the Planned Parenthood provision does not comply with those rules.

    A senior Republican Senate aide told Newsweek on Thursday that senators were unsure it will pass muster.

    Beyond the procedural hurdles, the measure faces a political one. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) would introduce an amendment to remove that language, according to The Hill. If they end up opposing the bill, supporters could not afford to lose any more Republicans. And with opposition from the right flank of the party, that would be a tall order.

    For its part, Planned Parenthood wasted no time blasting the proposal.

    “If this is the Senate’s idea of a bill with heart, then the women of America should have fear struck in theirs,” Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said Thursday in a statement.

Leave a Reply