Please note that Mr. Wolfensberger is also former staff director for the House Rules Committee
Thursday, March 18, 2010
One More on Legislative Procedure: Don Wolfensberger, of Roll Call and the Woodrow Wilson Center, on History of 'Deem & Pass'
More on Fr. Araujo's & My Colloquy on Legislative Procedure: Norm Ornstein, of American Enterprise Institute, on 'Deem & Pass'
Fr. Hesburgh laments Senate's decision to kill school choice in D.C.
Here is Fr. Ted's op-ed, published after the Senate -- on an almost party-line vote -- rejected Sen. Lieberman's efforts to save D.C.'s Opportunity Scholarship Program. This rejection is repulsive, and represents the worst kind of pandering to unworthy interests, at the expense of poor children. (But hey, that's just me. And Fr. Ted.) After celebrating the election of Barack Obama, our first African-American president (a president who, of course, came to Notre Dame to pay tribute to Fr. Ted and enjoy some of the glow of his legacy), and after noting the negative consequences of the Senate's decision for Catholic schools that serve low-income (predominantly non-Catholic) kids in D.C., Fr. Ted continues:
I have devoted my life to equal opportunity for all Americans, regardless of skin color. I don't pretend that this one program is the answer to all the injustices in our education system. But it is hard to see why a program that has proved successful shouldn't have the support of our lawmakers. The end of Opportunity Scholarships represents more than the demise of a relatively small federal program. It will help write the end of more than a half-century of quality education at Catholic schools serving some of the most at-risk African-American children in the District.
I cannot believe that a Democratic administration will let this injustice stand.
Unfortunately, this Democratic administration (like any other, given the political givens) will almost certainly let this injustice stand. But, Fr. Ted has, I suspect, a lot more pull than I do in some pretty powerful quarters, so I'll hope his loyalty and confidence does not turn out to be unwarranted.
A book ideally suited to us at MOJ, it would seem
NYT
BOOKS
| March 17, 2010
Books
of The Times: Renewing an Old Idea: Common Good
By DWIGHT GARNER
Tony Judt's new book is a dying man's sense of a
dying idea: the notion that the state can play a significant role in its
citizens' lives without imperiling their liberties.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
A big "ministerial exception" decision in the Ninth Circuit
The invaluable Prof. Friedman reports:
In Alcazar v. Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle, (9th Cir., March 16, 2010), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed under the "ministerial exception" doctrine claims by two Catholic seminarians who alleged violations of Washington state's Minimum Wage Law. The two claimed that they were not paid required overtime wages while they served in a placement program as part of their preparation for the priesthood. The Court held that the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment compel a ministerial exception from neutral statutes that interfere with the church-clergy employment relationship. It also announced a test for determining whether an individual is a minister for purpose of the doctrine:
if a person (1) is employed by a religious institution, (2) was chosen for the position based "largely on religious criteria," and (3) performs some religious duties and responsibilities, that person is a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception.
Importantly, the court emphasized that the ministerial exception is required by the First Amendment.
"On Holy Ground"
My friend Mary O'Callaghan has an incredibly powerful piece, up at The Catholic Thing, called "Down Syndrome: On Holy Ground." It is amazing -- though, to those of us who know her, not surprising -- that she is able to describe a monstrously hateful incident and yet to use that description as an occasion for (what would have been entirely justified) fury, but for profound reflection:
[A]fter seeing the online ridicule of Down Syndrome children, I wonder whether the deepest sorrow that pierced Mary’s heart was not the physical suffering of her son, but the cruel taunts and mockery to which he was subjected. It must have been bewildering to her that his tormentors could not see that all the life and goodness, truth and beauty in her Son. Of course our children are not messiahs. But a Holy Cross Priest at Notre Dame reminded us last week that those of us who care for individuals with cognitive handicaps stand on holy ground. Knowing a child with Down Syndrome is like getting a small glimpse of the divine; original sin has been cleansed by baptism, and their souls are barely touched by actual sin. And that’s why we feel that when they are shown disrespect, something innocent and holy and sacred has been profaned.
Our Lady of Sorrows, may all of us see in the faces of those with disabilities, particularly this March 21 those with Down Syndrome, the image of the God who saved us.
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
Catholic Hospitals for the Health Insurance Reform Bill
Nuns for the Bill
Catholic nuns urge passage of Obama's health bill |
||||||||||||
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Catholic nuns are urging Congress to pass President Barack Obama's health care plan, in an unusual public break with bishops who say it would subsidize abortion. Some 60 leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 Catholic nuns Wednesday sent lawmakers a letter urging them to pass the Senate health care bill. It contains restrictions on abortion funding that the bishops say don't go far enough. The letter says that "despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions." The letter says the legislation also will help support pregnant women and "this is the real pro-life stance." |
Some interesting news from the legislative front
Stupak Ally in House Approves Senate Abortion Restrictions
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORNRepresentative Dale Kildee, Democrat of Michigan and a strong opponent of abortion, announced on Wednesday that he was satisfied with the provisions in the Senate-passed health care bill that seek to limit the use of federal money for insurance coverage of abortion.
The announcement by Mr. Kildee that he would support the health care legislation and would not oppose it based on the abortion issue gave a huge lift to House Democratic leaders, who have been working to assure abortion opponents that a vote for the bill would not reflect any change in policy on abortion, including the law known as the Hyde amendment, which prohibits the use of federal money for abortion in most cases.
In a statement, Mr. Kildee said:
For those who know me, I have always respected and cherished the sanctity of human life. I spent six years studying to be a priest and was willing to devote my life to God. I came to Congress two years after the Hyde amendment became law. And I have spent the last 34 years casting votes to protect the lives of the unborn. I have stood up to many in my party to defend the right to life and have made no apologies for doing so. I now find myself disagreeing with some of the people and groups I have spent a lifetime working with. I have listened carefully to both sides, sought counsel from my priest, advice from family, friends and constituents, and I have read the Senate abortion language more than a dozen times.
He added, “I am convinced that the Senate language maintains the Hyde amendment, which states that no federal money can be used for abortion.”
Mr. Kildee is a close ally of Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan and a leader of the House pro-life caucus, who sponsored an amendment adding tighter abortion restrictions to the House health care bill in November.
Mr. Stupak has said he would oppose the legislation unless it included those tighter restrictions and that the Senate language was insufficient. But the Senate language was negotiated by two lawmakers, Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who have solid credentials as opponents of abortion rights.
A number of critics, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, have said the Senate language is insufficient. But Democratic leaders have sought to make the case that if the Senate provisions were good enough for them, it should be good enough for abortion opponents in the House, too.
Mr. Kildee had voted in favor of the House health care bill in November, and in his statement said there were important reasons to support the health care bill.
“We must not lose sight of what is at stake here — the lives of 31 million American children, adults, and seniors who don’t have health insurance,” he said. “There is nothing more pro-life than protecting the lives of 31 million Americans. Voting for this bill in no way diminishes my pro-life voting record or undermines my beliefs. I am a staunch pro-life member of Congress — both for the born and the unborn.”
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
