As the beneficiary of 16 years of Catholic education, eight of them under the tutelage of the Sisters of Charity in Cincinnati, I am inclined by habit to nod in swift concurrence whenever the good sisters speak. Not today.
A letter released yesterday by 60 leaders of Catholic women’s religious orders argues that the Senate-passed version of health care reform does not provide for funding of elective abortion and is thus the “REAL [capitalization in original] pro-life” option. The Catholic bishops, the non-sectarian National Right to Life Committee and, this morning, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious strongly disagree.
The dispute has emerged with greater force after it became clear last week that any commitment by the Democratic leadership in Congress to “fix” the Senate bill’s defective abortion limitation language was unenforceable – a piecrust promise. Not only would the Senate’s traditionally stronger corps of anti-Hyde amendment votes ensure defeat of any abortion language fix, but 41 Republican senators signed a letter to oppose any policy-making on the reconciliation bill that would ferry the fix to enactment – a pledge that clearly would include the doomed abortion limitation.
As a consequence, the Senate bill’s multiple pathways to subsidize health plans that include elective abortion or to even fund abortion directly will become law once the House passes the Senate bill and sends it to President Obama. The women religious who have advocated this course are part of a small chorus of Catholic voices who argue that the Senate bill seals off taxpayer participation in abortion, and particularly that the community health services funding in the bill is covered by Department of Health and Human Services regulations that bar their use in any facility or program that provides elective abortion.
But the argument is circular. The regulations cited are based on the Hyde amendment itself, which applies to funds appropriated in the annual spending bill for HHS. The Senate health bill directly appropriates $8.5 billion over five years to HHS for community health centers, and if the Hyde amendment is to be construed as applicable to these funds it is clearly voluntary on HHS’s part. The case is strengthened by the fact that the Senate bill, H.R. 3590, explicitly applies an abortion funding exclusion to other new spending included in the Senate bill, for example, new money for school-based clinics.
The Senate bill contains no parallel exclusion for the community health centers. The White House and HHS officials contend that the existing Hyde Amendment regulations will be applied to these funds. House members inclined to disbelieve this pledge have evidence for their position. Within the past 14 months the Obama Administration has: 1) restored foreign assistance funds to family planning groups that provide and promote abortion overseas; 2) championed and achieved legislation for the District of Columbia to spend local government revenue on abortion even though the funds pass through the U.S. Treasury; and 3) rescinded regulations promulgated under the Bush administration to give teeth to statutory conscience rights that had hitherto lacked regulatory implementation. In short, regulatory interpretations and policies can change – and change overnight.
Moreover, fresh litigation from pro-choice groups over this issue is likely, as on many other provisions of the bill. Of the 17 states that currently provide public money for abortion under state insurance plans, 13 do so as a result of court decision.
The contention that the extant HHS regulations regarding the Hyde Amendment apply — when the Senate bill is silent on the matter, the Obama administration clearly favors the opposite outcome, and the issue is a primary stumbling block to passage of a bill strong majorities of Americans oppose on other grounds as well – is conveniently timed but ultimately unpersuasive, the good sisters notwithstanding.
Growing Momentum for Iran Sanctions in Congress, But Not So Much at the U.N.
Author: James Phillips
The Senate yesterday passed a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran and on companies that assist Iran’s oil industry. The legislation, S.2799, targets companies that supply Iran with gasoline and other refined products or help it to expand its refinery capacity. Although Iran possesses the world’s third largest oil reserves, it must import approximately 40 percent of its gasoline supplies because of a lack of refinery capacity. The House voted to pass similar legislation last month by a vote of 412-12.
The Senate vote came the day after seven senators wrote a letter urging President Obama to take stronger action to escalate pressure on Iran over its suspect nuclear efforts. The letter, which urged the administration “to do everything that is necessary to stop Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability in the critical months ahead,” was signed by Republican Senators Jon Kyl, John McCain, Johnny Isakson, and David Vitter, independent Joe Lieberman, and Democratic Senators Evan Bayh, Robert Casey, Charles Schumer, and Benjamin Cardin.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration’s efforts to ratchet up pressure on Iran in the United Nations Security Council faces resistance from the usual suspects: China and Russia. The Wall Street Journal reported that the administration will push for enhanced financial sanctions on Iran and measures aimed specifically at Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its huge constellation of enterprises and front companies.
China, which has a growing trade relationship with Iran, has been dragging its feet on another round of sanctions. It forced a cancellation of a meeting of the five permanent members of the Security Council on Iran in December and only sent a low-level delegation to a meeting on that issue two weeks ago. Russia also has sought to dilute and delay any sanctions at the Security Council. Yesterday Moscow signaled that this resistance is likely to continue: a top arms trade official issued a statement that reassured Iran that it is a valued market for Russian arms exports and noted that no international agreements bar Russia from selling weapons to Tehran.
This is one more sign that if and when the United Nations Security Council takes action, it is likely to be a day late and a dollar short.
For more on Iran, see: Iran Briefing Room