Steve Schneck, of CUA, on the Proposed Health Insurance Reform Legislation

Hello again, All,

Steve Schneck, Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at CUA, is one of the signatories to the pro-life letter in support of the health insurance reform bill that I posted earlier. That post has drawn nearly 30 comments by now, a few of which evince some want of information and clarification, if not indeed a full 'hermeneutic of suspicion.'  Happily, the most recent comment comes from Steve himself, and affords the said information and clarification.  Because it so very nicely explains why the Senate version of the health insurance reform legislation comports with Hyde and actually is apt significantly to lessen the incidence of abortion, as well as why it comports so well with Catholic social teachings more broadly, I am converting it to a full post with Steve's permission.  Here it is:

It’s difficult at this point to separate the spin from the reality in comparing the House and the Senate bills as they pertain to abortion. But, as one of the signers of the document above, let me try. This is an important matter that deserves careful reflection.

The House bill with the Stupak provisions, is a good bill. It provides health care coverage to all but about 9 million Americans, which in and of itself will encourage many at risk women to carry their babies to term. Comparing the high abortion rate in the U.S. with the much lower rates in Europe and Canada, suggests the possibility that good health care coverage matters for abortion rates. The Stupak language, moreover, does not allow abortions to be performed in any of the health care exchanges, except for rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother.

The Senate bill, by my analysis, does a slightly better job for pro-life concerns. While it does allow insurers in the exchanges to offer abortion coverage, it requires participants to write a separate “abortion check” to pay for them out of pocket and not from federal funds. States which do not want abortion coverage in their exchanges may opt out. Following on a similar enlargement by the Bush administration, the Senate bill also provides $11 billion of new money for community health centers–which provide desperately needed care for the poorest of the poor. The Bush administration’s rules that prohibited these centers from providing abortion services remain in effect and the Obama administration has pledged to abide by those regulations. The Senate bill also dramatically extends CHIP protection to infants and children and greatly extends Medicaid coverage for the poor. Perhaps even more importantly, the Senate bill (thanks to Senator Casey) has incorporated all the policy provisions of the Pregnant Women Support Act that was so strongly endorsed by the American bishops. This package of policies includes a number of provisions designed to encourage at risk women not to abort, including: fulsome pre- and post-natal health care and very generous adoption incentives. I am concerned that the Senate bill leaves more Americans without coverage than the House bill, but in sum I think the Senate bill is slightly more friendly to pro-life concerns than the House bill.

You may, of course, come to a different conclusion than me on this. Fair enough…these are difficult prudential determinations. But, please think long and hard before ascribing perjorative motives to me or the other pro-life signers who have struggled mightily with the moral implications of these two bills.

Best wishes,

Stephen Schneck

 

Thanks again to all who are taking part in this important dialogue, and especially to Steve,

Bob