The president’s health reform and the life issues

It is possible to have health reform without shuttting down Catholic hospitals. Follow Canada's lead.

The debate over the future of health care reform in the United States has often focused on two issues surrounding life; the beginning and the end. Both issues, abortion and euthanasia, have implications for religious based hospitals, particularly Catholic ones, and therefore the entire future of health care in the United States.

For those who think Catholic hospitals are only matters for Catholics, consider this: each year more than 5.5 million patients receive care in a Catholic hospital. That accounts for 1 patient out of every 6 and while the hospitals may be Catholic, the patients come from all walks of life, all backgrounds. To shut down or threaten the future of Catholic health care is to threaten the future of American healthcare.

Since it appears at this point that America will end up with a public system of one type or another, they may want to look north to Canada to see how such a system can incorporate religious hospitals without forcing compliance on every issue.

Just as in the United States, health care in Canada has often had a religious influence on it; in fact the Grey Nuns from Montreal started hospitals in both countries. As governments in Canada took on a greater role in health delivery, many Catholic hospitals, including the one in which I was born, kept their religious nature and adherence to principles on life issues, while also joining the public system and offering care to all. There have been and continue to be pressures, but for the most part, Catholic hospitals and those still operated by the Salvation Army do not allow abortion, sterilizations or condone euthanasia (a practice not yet legal here but currently being lobbied for).

Now those sceptical that President Obama’s health reform would force religious hospitals to change should think again. Even before the appearance of a government plan, pressure from private insurance plans to compromise on life issues led to the Salvation Army selling off its hospitals in the U.S., including the flagship location in Queens, NY.

Were some of the competing plans floating around Washington to pass, Catholic bishops would have to decide whether to follow their counterparts at the Salvation Army or try to tough it out and fight the system. Despite assurances from President Obama that the public option would not provide coverage for abortion, Time Magazine reveals that in an indirect way, the plan put forward by House Democrats would alter federal funding of abortion. Requiring the public option to cover abortion, and within five years all private plans to do the same, would eventually lead to pressure on Catholic hospitals to offer abortion as an elective service, something they cannot do while remaining Catholic.

Two issues emerge out of this; firstly, should the American taxpayer, even indirectly, pay for abortion? Since 1976 and the passage of the Hyde Amendment this has been illegal, even under the health insurance offered to the military and federal employees. The second issue is, should Catholic or other religious hospitals be forced to offer services that go against their basic beliefs? I’ll let the American public sort out the first issue for themselves, but the clear answer on the second question is no, they should not. In a pluralistic society, one taught to celebrate diversity, surely a health system can exist that allows for different services to be offered by different health care providers. President Obama should ensure that, like in Canada, religious hospitals are not forced into dropping their principles to participate in health reform.

In many ways, this is Obama’s biggest fumble on health reform. For years the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has been one of the loudest supporters of health reform, calling time and again for some type of universal health coverage. In not ensuring that his reform remained abortion neutral, Obama has turned allies into opponents. Pastoral letters have been written to those in the pew advising them of what is wrong with the proposed plans, op-eds denouncing the plan have come forth from former allies in all parts of the country. Boston’s Archbishop Sean Cardinal O’Malley even grabbed the president for a few minutes at the funeral of Edward Kennedy to tell him that while the bishops as a group support health reform, they cannot support this particular health reform.

While some of the president’s supporters will clearly accept nothing short of full abortion coverage in a public plan, it is clear this is not an issue most Americans support. President Obama has to decide whether to side with the bishops and most Americans and get the health reform he seeks, or whether he will side with Planned Parenthood and NARAL and risk losing it all.

Brian Lilley is the Ottawa Bureau Chief for radio stations Newstalk 1010 in Toronto and CJAD 800 in Montreal. He is also Associate Editor of Mercatornet.com Follow Brian on Twitter.