For me, double effect is relevant, but does not settle it: A response to Bob

Thanks again, to Bob, for his having taken the lead in helping us all think through the health-insurance debate.  To be sure, the debate will continue, in many contexts.  Bob says, in his recent post, that "double effect settles it."  In my view, though, as important as the question that Bob calls "the principal question" is -- i.e., the "question of what the traditional Catholic moral principle embodied in the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE), along with the familiar moral and legal principles of 'proximate causation' and 'intervening decisions,' might offer each Catholic of conscience wishing to assess the benefits and burdens apt to be brought by the health insurance reform legislation" -- it is not, for Catholics or for citizens, the only question. 

To be sure, a faithful, engaged, conscientious Catholic must satisfy herself or himself (as Bob has, of course, done) that "she would not be favoring the legislation with the aim of aiding or abetting the procurement of abortions."  I assume that none of my MOJ colleagues favor the legislation with this aim.

This brings us, then, to Bob's "provisional conclusion":  "since all empirical evidence seems to indicate that the legislation is apt actually to decrease the incidence of abortion overall, and at any rate certainly not to increase it, any burdensome feature of the legislation apt to be of concern to Catholics is in all likelihood vastly outweighed by its beneficial features."  This conclusion -- while certainly not irresponsibly or obviously wrong -- is not as warranted, in my judgment, as Bob thinks it is.  I'm pretty sure I am following all this as closely as Bob is, and trying as hard as he is to get the real facts, and to distinguish speculation from responsible prediction, and to "think with the Church", and I am also (therefore) pretty sure that some of the words Bob uses ("all", "certainly", "in all likelihood vastly") are not warranted.  But, to be clear, I have no doubt that Bob's conclusion is both reasonable and sincere.  I hope he thinks the same about mine.  (I have been frustrated by the suggestions, in a number of statements, writings, and posts by Catholics who support the proposal, that those of us who don't are disingenuously using "Catholic" or "pro-life" concerns to justify opposition that is merely partisan.  These suggestions are, in my view, cr*p.)

If this proposal becomes law -- I expect, and regret (and not only for abortion-related reasons, but also because I believe, with confidence equal to Bob's, that the proposals beneficial features will "in all likelihood" be outweighed by its burdensome features) -- I hope that those Catholics who support it, and who have worked for its passage, and who have taken on the responsibility of convincing other Catholics to support it, (i) will be equally dedicated in their efforts to do what they can to watch out for, avoid, and remedy any bad side-effects of what they regard as the proposal's good aims, (ii) will remain open to the possibility that their predictive judgments were, while reasonable, mistaken, and so to the necessity of revising the proposal (everyone, of course, should remain open to the possibility that their predictions will turn out wrong), (iii) will work to maintain (against the certain-to-come efforts to make the proposal more congenial to abortion funding than it is) whatever safeguards the law contains against public (direct or indirect) subsidization of abortion, and (iv) will work hard to secure "conscience" protections for hospitals and health-care providers.

It is not the case, though some Catholics have suggested that it is, that the only reason a faithful Catholic could have for opposing this legislation is a warranted concern that it would subsidize (directly or indirectly) abortion, increase the incidence of abortion, or entrench abortion rights in our law and culture.  I do have such a warranted concern, but even if I didn't, I would -- I think -- not support this particular proposal.  I have no doubt that "reform" is needed in the health-care sector, and no doubt that a just political community should find a way to secure good health -- not just "health care" but good health -- to all, and especially the poor. That the propsal under consideration is called a "health care" proposal, and that it aims to secure greater coverage for those who do not now have it, does not make it a "Catholic" proposal, or a proposal that Catholics -- including, of course, Catholics who aspire to be guided to faithful Citizenship by the Church's social teaching -- should, as Catholics, support.  Catholics not only may, but should -- just like everyone else -- be responsible stewards of the political community's resources and of the political community's future.