The High Ground

There is an important proposed regulation open to public comment on the Regulations.gov website. It is entitled “Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices In Violation of Federal Law” and has caused some controversy since President Bush directed the Dept Of Health and Human Services to draft the regulation. If you are interested, you may view the document here. Briefly, it provides protection under federal law to health care providers who do not wish to provide services that are contrary to their religious or moral beliefs. While one could argue that the Constitution already provides such protection, current practices and political ideology requires safeguards that one conversant with the Founding Documents would consider to be superfluous.

As I was writing my comment, I was thinking of the past two posts – both dealing with religion and politics. So, I have decided to post my comments to the HHS panel here as well. As always, I hope you enjoy reading it!

Thank you for providing a forum for this very important issue. I am writing to argue that the government supports the freedom of health care providers following their conscience. As much as I would like to see certain practices abolished, this is not the intent of my argument or of this proposed regulation. The patient seeking birth control, abortions, or other procedures contrary to a health care provider’s religious or moral beliefs are not being denied service, they would simply receive service from those who don’t object. This is the intent of this policy, and it is an acceptable compromise.

 The most immediate argument is that as Americans, we are protected by the Constitution from interference from the State regarding our religious beliefs and practices. Contrary to the interpretation of many, a careful reading of the First Amendment clearly mandates that the government cannot interfere with the religious practice of the populace. The very nature of the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, is to place boundaries on the power of government. not the people. Indeed, the Constitution repeatedly affirms that sovereignty rests solely in the hands of the people, and that we cede certain freedoms as stated and limited in the language of the Constitution. To suggest that an individual’s practices based on religion is unconstitutional is absurd. Only an activist judiciary would pervert the substance of the Constitution in such a manner. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has taken to this practice increasingly over the past several decades. I urge the Executive branch of government to be mindful of its obligations. It is charged to protect eh citizens from the tyranny of government.  to compel health care providers to provide medical treatments and products that are contrary to their religious beliefs is itself a violation of the Constitution – as my discussion has clearly articulated.

 At one time, physicians used to take the Hippocratic Oath, although I understand that this practice has fallen out of favor. There are still many health care providers who remember and believe in the passage that roughly translates as ‘do no harm’. There are many health care providers who believe that abortificants and surgical abortions are indeed doing harm to a life – the unborn child in the womb. While the medical community may continue to debate and seek the scientific threshold of life, for the Roman Catholic physician, the answer lies in the Magisterium – the teachings of the Church. Life begins at conception. Pope Pius IX stated this ex cathedra in 1869, and it has been part of the Catholic Canon sine – although writings as early as the first century condemn abortion. How can the state require health care providers to use techniques, pharmaceuticals, and practices that violate the rights of the unborn child?  This ethical argument dovetails nicely with the first argument. It is not only morally wrong, it is a violation of First Amendment rights.

 Finally, the cost to society would be catastrophic. It is not commonly recognized, but the Roman Catholic Church provides a significant amount of health care in this nation. According to the USCCB – the United States Council of Catholic Bishops – the Roman Catholic Church operates – and largely funds – over 404 health care centers and some 1,500 homes. Twenty states report that more than 20% of their citizens are admitted to Roman Catholic hospitals. Roman Catholic hospitals report over 15.4 million emergency room visits. The service that Roman Catholic hospitals provides is significant and could not easily be replaced by local, state, or federal governments. Catholic Charities provides services from addiction recovery, shelters, psychiatric counseling, and other assorted health services that surpass government services in some states. To force Roman Catholic health care providers to administer treatments that are contrary to our moral and religious beliefs is criminal. I – and many other Roman Catholics who support Catholic Charities – would find other used for our money. I could not in good conscience support hospitals and clinics that were providing abortions and other objectionable practices. I think that many bishops would agree. In fact, several have openly stated that without this protection, the may ‘close shop;’. I don’t see how state and local governments could absorb the crushing influx of the sick and injured that would no longer be served by Catholic Charities and the Catholic Health Care Association. Not only would the number of patients increase dramatically, millions of patients who are indigent would no longer have their care subsidized by the charity of Roman Catholic Americans who support the good works of he Catholic hospitals.

I live in Connecticut, a state where the Speaker of the General Assembly – a Mr. Amman – threatened the Catholic hospitals over such an issue. I don’t want to see this tactic repeated nationwide – and this experience leads to the final point. On the basis of the constitutional arguments alone, the remedy that is proposed by this regulation should be meaningless and unnecessary. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the government – on any level – has the power and authority to force a man or woman to act against their conscience. Indeed, the Constitution expressly limits the power of government and openly asserts its purpose as a bulwark to defend the rights of the sovereign citizen. It is a sign that we live in a nation that has so grossly subverted the wisdom of our founding fathers that I have to take the time to write this letter.

 I urge the Department to accept this regulation, to protect the rights and liberties of physicians and health care providers to practice ethical medicine. No one should be compelled to choose between two mastes. No one should be forced to leave their vocation because of ther moral beliefs. This past week, a Dr. Dean O’Dell argued on national radio that moral and religious beliefs should not be a factor in their practice – anyone who would not provide abortions over issues of conscience should not have entered the medical profession. This it he tyranny of the minority - in this case, one person – seeking to subjugate the moral principles of thousands of men and women who have honed their talents, passions, and God-given gifts to the treatment and care of the sick.