Thursday, March 18, 2010
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
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.
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.
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 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." |
Representative 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.”
Hello again, All,
And many thanks to Rick for his further thoughts. It's lovely to see that we're once again more or less on the same page, even if understandably breaking a bit differently on how some of the inherently uncertainty-fraught empirical probabilities are apt to resolve. 'That's what makes horse races,' as 'they' say.
On Father Araujo's queries concerning the legislative process, I've a few tentative thoughts.
The first is that I doubt that Catholic legal, political, or moral theory says much that is fundamentally different from what more garden variety democratic theory says on the matter of legislative processes. But I would be happy to be set straight if I'm wrong about this.
The second is that I would be surprised if the Catholic tradition, like democratic political theory more generally, did not presumptively favor majoritarian legislative decision-making, with any departure from that default setting requiring justification by reference to some extraordinary circumstance. (A classic case in point would of course be that circumstance in which certain fundamental individual rights are at stake, which even a supermajority of everyone-save-the-affected party cannot legitimately disregard.) Personally, I think that most of the anti-majoritarian rules of the Senate are outmoded, rooted in earlier times when the Senate was truly deliberative, collegial, and significantly more insulated from political hackery than the House. Those days appear to be gone, and we seem as a polity to have evolved into something much more like a parliamentary democracy than we used to be. There accordingly seems to be significantly less 'benefit' purchased with that 'cost' to democratic governance which are the antiquarian Senate rules.
The third is that Father Araujo is surely correct that legislators ought to know what they are voting on, and that a bill that occupies thousands of pages in its articulation is apt to be difficult to read carefully in a short span of time. Regrettably, however, just about all Congressional legislation for many decades now seems to sprawl over thousands of pages. I don't know that there's any way round this any more than there seems to be any plausible way to comport in the old fashioned (pre-20th century) way with the pre-modern understanding of the 'Non-Delegation Doctrine.' I suspect that we're stuck, for better or worse, with simply working to keep such changes within reasonable bounds, more or less as we've done in the delegation context throught the APA.
My fourth observation seques immediately from the third: Over the past couple of decades, it seems to me to have become common for a side of the Congressional aisle that is poised to lose a battle over charged legislation to adopt a troublingly disingenuous tactic. This is (a) to seize upon some quirk of the legislative process that is quite familiar to all members of Congress but not so well known to the general public, (b) observe that the winning side has made use of this quirk, and then (c) suggest that in doing so the winning side has done something highly irregular or even extra-constitutional. Both major political parties, alas, have resorted to this tactic -- the Dems, unsurprisingly, when Republicans have held Congress and perhaps White House, and the Republicans, unsurprisingly, when Democrats have held Congress and perhaps White House. And I think it deplorable, amounting to the willling sacrifice of longterm confidence in, and even acceptance of, constitutional government in order to reap cheap short term public opinion games. (A political analogue to much Wall Street trading activity.)
Here are three cases in point that seem to me to have been salient of late:
First, highlighting the 'bigness' of 'big' bills and suggesting that 'bigness' of this sort is both unusual and tantamount to 'socialist' 'takeover' of something: During the President's 'health care summit' a few weeks back, Rep. Cantor ostentatiously stacked the pages of the many-thousand page legislation up on a table, as if to suggest that there is something unprecedented about the size of this complex piece of legislation. Unstated here was that similarly sized stacks could have been piled up in connection with countless 'big' pieces of Democratic and Republican and Bipartisan legislation alike over the past 70 years or so.
Second, suggesting that resort to budget reconciliation as a means around frivolous use of the anti-majoritarian Senate filibuster is somehow nefarious. This suggestion was, of course, all the rage just a few weeks ago. But a look at all past uses of budget reconciliation since this procedure was introduced about thirty years ago quickly reveals that (a) Republican Congresses have employed this procedure twice as often (ten times) as have Democrats (five times), (b) Republican Congresses have employed the procedure in three of their ten resorts to it to increase the size of the federal budget enormously -- ironic, of course, in view of current Republican piety about budget balancing -- while Democratic Congresses have employed it in all five of their resorts solely to decrease -- in two or three of those cases, enormously -- the federal deficit, and (c) all past Republican and Democratic resorts to reconciliation have been just as 'social issue' involving as is the currently contemplated Democratic resort to this process. If you find this surprising, you might find even more astonishing the fact that the data I report here comes from Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, writing in conjunction with a couple of others. Here is the fuller story, still summarized: http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2010/03/republican-deficits-and-budget.html .
Third, suggesting that resort to 'deem and pass' is somehow unconstitutional or uniquely 'Democrat' in character. This canard is the new 'reconciliation.' And while I have no particular attachment to this procedure -- I think reconciliation is going to be necessary henceforth, now that we have in effect transitioned to being a parliamentary democracy, but I think deem and pass likely always to be less common -- it is definitely an error to associate it uniquely with one party. Of five resorts to this process in the past 20 years, two have been by Democratic Congresses, three by Republican Congresses. The first two of those uses -- in 1989 and 1993 -- were by Democrat-controlled Congresses to pass smoking bans on domestic airline flights and the Family and Medical Leave Act, respectively. The next three of those uses -- in 1996, 1997, and 2005 -- were by Republican-controlled Congresses to confer an ultimately-deemed-unconstitutional line-item-veto power on the President, to prohibit use of modern statistical sampling techniques in the census, and to trim Medicaid, welfare, and student loan program growth, respectively.
I emphasize once more that neither major political party appears to have a lock on resort to the unfortunate tactic I describe here, but it is common for the losing side to be that which employs it. Currently that is the Republicans. When one day in future the Democrats do the same, it will be just as deplorable. It would be lovely were the general public sufficiently knowledgable about the legislative process as to render the tactic less politically useful to losing sides. But I won't now indulge that Quixotic hope.
Thanks as ever,
Bob
In the New York Times, Robert Wright complains that Christian missionaries are at least partially responsible for Christian-Muslim tension when they try to establish common ground with Muslims in order to bring them to Jesus. Some of the missionaries even call themselves "Muslims" because it means "one who surrenders to God." Then Wright asks:
Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose you were a Christian parent in America and you heard that someone who called himself a Christian had bonded with your son via genial Bible talk and then tried to convert him to Islam. That would be annoying, right? Might even lead to some blowback?
Would I find it annoying? Maybe, depending on how old my son is and the context of the conversation. Blowback? Hmm . . like seeking to restrict non-Christians from using the word "God," rioting and killing Muslims? Probably not. I won't defend every tactic employed by Christian missionaries, but if we cannot draw any meaningful distinction between the efforts by some Muslims to impose a set of truth claims through law and/or violence and the efforts by some Christians to persuade non-Christians to embrace a set of truth claims through personal evangelism, we have a problem.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Twenty-five pro-life Catholic theologians and Evangelical leaders yesterday sent letters to members of Congress urging them not to let misleading information about abortion provisions in the Senate health care bill block passage of sorely-needed reform.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a Washington-based advocacy group, said that the Senate health bill upholds abortion funding restrictions and supports pregnant women.
The letter included a page by page analysis of the Senate bill as it pertains to abortion.
The group asked members of Congress “to make an informed decision about this legislation based on careful deliberation guided by facts.”
“We believe that the provisions below provide extensive evidence that longstanding restrictions on federal funding of abortion have been maintained. Furthermore, this bill provides new and important supports for vulnerable pregnant women,” the letter states.
The complete text of the letter follows:
Dear Member of Congress,
As Christians committed to a consistent ethic of life, and deeply concerned with the health and well-being of all people, we want to see health care reform enacted. Our nation has a rare and historic opportunity to expand coverage to tens of millions of people, make coverage more affordable for all families, and crack down on many of the most harmful practices of the health insurance industry.
We are writing because of our concern about the lack of clear and accurate information regarding abortion provisions in the health care reform bill passed by the Senate on December 24, 2009.
Reforming our health care system is necessarily complex, and the provisions related to abortion, or any other issue, require careful examination of the facts as they exist in the legislative language. We believe that the provisions below provide extensive evidence that longstanding restrictions on federal funding of abortion have been maintained. Furthermore, this bill provides new and important supports for vulnerable pregnant women.
Following is a comprehensive factual listing of all provisions related to abortion and positive supports for pregnant women in HR 3590, along with specific page references.
Abortion-Related Provisions Included in the Senate-Approved Health Care Reform Bill “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (HR 3590 EAS/PP)
· Prohibits the Secretary of HHS from requiring the coverage of any abortion services as part of the essential health benefits for any qualified health plan offered in a state insurance Exchange (pg. 2070);
· Allows the insurance company to decide whether or not to include coverage of abortion services, including the Hyde abortion exceptions, in a qualified health insurance plan offered in a state insurance Exchange (pg. 2070);
· Prohibits insurance companies from using federal funds, including federal tax credits and cost-sharing assistance, to pay for abortion services except for those services allowable under the Hyde amendment (pg. 2071);
· Requires an insurance company that chooses to offer a plan in a State Exchange with abortion coverage, beyond the Hyde abortion exceptions, to collect a separate second premium payment from each enrollee for the cost of the abortion coverage (pgs. 2071-2072 & 2074-2075);
· Requires the insurance company to deposit all separate payments into a separate account that consists solely of abortion premium payments and that it is used exclusively to pay for such services (pgs. 2072-2074);
· Requires the state health insurance commissioners to ensure that insurance companies comply with these requirements in accordance with guidance and accounting standards set by the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office (pg. 2075);
· Requires insurance companies that offer general abortion coverage as part of a qualified health plan to provide a notice of coverage in the summary of benefits and coverage explanation (pg. 2076);
· Allows states to pass a law prohibiting the inclusion of abortion coverage in plans offered in a state health insurance Exchange (pg. 2069);
· Requires the director of the Office of Public Management to ensure that there is at least one private, multi-state qualified health plan offered in each state insurance Exchange that does not provide coverage of abortion services beyond the Hyde exceptions (pgs. 2087-2088);
· Prohibits insurance companies offering qualified health plans from discriminating against any individual health care provider or health care facility because of its unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions (pg. 2076);
· Prohibits the preemption of state laws regarding abortion (pg. 2077);
· Maintains current Federal laws relative to conscience protection; willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion (pg. 2077);
· Establishes and provides $250 million for programs to support vulnerable pregnant women (pgs. 2170-2173); and
· Increases the adoption tax credit and makes it refundable so that lower income families can access the tax credit (pgs 2400-2407).
We are now at a critical moment in the history of our country. More than 30 million Americans may finally gain access to a health care system that is affordable -- providing families, children and seniors with fundamental care that is essential to human dignity. We respectfully ask that you make an informed decision about this legislation based on careful deliberation guided by facts.
Sincerely,
Morna Murray
President
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
Ron Sider
President
Evangelicals for Social Action
Rev. Jim Wallis
President and CEO
Sojourners
Stephen F. Schneck
Director, Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies
The Catholic University of America
Joel Hunter
Senior Pastor
Northland Church
Dr. David P. Gushee
Chair
New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good
David O’Brien
Professor of Faith and Culture
University of Dayton
Francis Xavier Doyle
Former Associate General Secretary
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
Jean Stokan
Director
Institute Justice Team
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas
Lisa Cahill
Professor of Theology
Boston College
Bryan N. Massingale, S.T.D.
President, Catholic Theological Society of America
Associate Professor of Theology
Marquette University
David DeCosse
Director of Campus Ethics Programs
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
Santa Clara University
Nicholas P. Cafardi
Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law
Duquesne University School of Law
Dennis M. Doyle
Religious Studies
University of Dayton
Terrence W. Tilley
Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J. Professor of Catholic Theology
Chair, Theology Department
Fordham University
Richard Gaillardetz
Murray/Bacik Professor of Catholic Studies
University of Toledo
Vincent J. Miller
Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of Dayton
Alex Mikulich
Research Fellow
Jesuit Social Research Institute
Loyola University
Sandra A. Yocum, Ph.D.
Chair of Religious Studies
University of Dayton
Rev. Dr. Cynthia L. Hale
Senior Pastor
Ray of Hope Christian Church, Decatur, GA
Dr. Barbara Williams Skinner
President
Skinner Leadership Institute
Cheryl Bridges Johns
Professor of Christian Formation & Discipleship
Pentecostal Theological Seminary
Brian McLaren
Author, Speaker and Founding Pastor
Cedar Ridge Community Church
Glen Stassen
Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics
Fuller Theological Seminary
Lisa Sharon Harper
Executive Director, NY Faith & Justice
Author, Evangelical Does Not Equal Republican...or Democrat
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
