The Church of the Kennedys
Rep. Patrick Kennedy finally decided to take his issues with the Catholic Church and his bishop out of the public spotlight and wrestle with them in private. Now, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is upbraiding the whole body of US bishops for not understanding the full nature of charitable health care….as a good Catholic should.
As a Catholic, I dare say it’s because the Conference of Catholic Bishops has lost its way.
So she gives them a schooling.
As someone who was raised by a family absolutely committed to public service and to making sure that our nation provides health care to the least among us, I am devastated that the bishops are using their influence to try not to increase access to health care for the millions of people who don’t have insurance.
Hold on. Where did Ms. Kennedy-Townsend learn Catholic Social Teaching?
Okay, two things, working backwards…
One, she criticizes the bishops for making public funding of abortion a main focus of their concerns with moral health care legislation, while she in fact does the same thing (in reverse).
And two, providing federal funding for abortion is not only denying health care to the least among us, it’s denying them life. Who can more be legitimately called ‘the least among us’ than a pre-born infant baby in the womb of a pregnant mother?Â
As for those bishops, they are holding their own.
0 Comment
If a person wants to buy it, specialty “cancer insurance” can be purchased. Why can’t companies offer specialty “abortion insurance” for those who desire such coverage. It is a simple solution to the ethical problems associated with publicly funded coverage of abortions. Remove the possibility of public money paying for abortion and let individuals “choose” to buy the specialty coverage if they wish.
The flaw in this approach, I believe, is that the demand for such coverage might actually be quite low, with only fertile females requiring such coverage and a smaller subset actually interested in the coverage. If the market for covering abortion is really there, someone would cover it. But I think it’s a similar situation as we have with “flood insurance”. The risks are too great for the few who need it so the private sector doesn’t cover floods, we leave that to the government.
When an “increase access to health care for the millions of people who don’t have insurance” is used to mask the meaning that the “least among us” will be equal not in health care, but to make sure that they have death care. Since when does a comitment to public service include the killing of the pre-born?
Kathleen Kennedy’s thinking is a good example of how we have lost our way when it comes to respecting the sanctity of all life.
Thank you.