Tag Archives: stupak amendment

Catholic Social Teaching and the 10th Amendment vs. ObamaCare

From the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of the lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

This is an unusual topic for me to blog about; I don’t normally cover religious topics for a variety of reasons. Still, as I have watched the debate over ObamaCare unfold, I have noted with interest that the Catholic bishops in the United States have opposed socialized medicine only insofar as it would expand federal funding to abortion coverage. Their single issue opposition to ObamaCare has led to the perception that its funding of abortion is the only way it contradicts Catholic social teaching.

But that’s not the case. Tea Party activists have opposed ObamaCare on the grounds that it violates the Tenth Amendment, which plainly says that the powers not reserved to the federal government or prohibited to the states should be reserved to the states or to the people. Catholic social teaching is similar in that it invokes the principle of subsidiarity, explained by the Catechism in the quote above. In essence, both the Tenth Amendment and the Catholic principle of subsidiarity are identical. Both make the case that a massive collectivist takeover of health care is not only unnecessary, but improper insofar as it “can threaten personal freedom and initiative.”

You’re reading that right: Both the United States Constitution and the Catechism of the Catholic Church repudiate collectivism and demand subsidiarity to preserve human freedom. On this issue, our founding fathers who wrote of our God-given liberty would be in lockstep with every pope since at least Pope Leo XIII.

Why point this out? It’s not just a “fun fact.” The bishops have opposed ObamaCare because it does, in fact, expand federal funding of abortion. But what if it hadn’t? Had the Stupak amendment been preserved, the U.S. bishops were prepared to support the bill — despite its clear violation of the principle of subsidiarity. Certainly the right to life and the preservation of human dignity are the paramount concerns, the very foundation, of Catholic social teaching. But the principle of subsidiarity has again and again been expounded upon by the papal teaching authority. It is no small matter.

The U.S. bishops were in a unique position, as both Americans and Catholic bishops, to connect the Catholic principle of subsidiarity to our constitutional principles. They had an opportunity to tell American Catholics that opposing ObamaCare is both a patriotic and religious duty. They utterly failed to do so. They missed an opportunity to boldly reaffirm a mostly forgotten principle of Catholic social teaching, to affirm the link between the Catholic and American commitments to human freedom, and to once again take up the Catholic Church’s historic leadership in the fight against global socialism.

Only the bishops can know why they have chosen not to take this opportunity. All we can do, as ordinary Catholics, is encourage them to elucidate this principle and its connection to American constitutional principles. In the meantime, as ordinary Catholics we can tell our fellow American Catholics, and all of our fellow Americans, what the Church teaches about God’s model of governance versus the collectivist model proposed by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

111 Congresses Later, Senate Puts Liberty on a Ventilator

I don’t usually write about the socialist takeover of 1/6 of our economy sorry, health care reform, because it makes me so angry that I can’t usually form rational thoughts on the subject. It was the issue that made me realize voting for Barack Obama last year was the biggest mistake I’ve made in my life (and I’ve made some whoppers).

But I can’t let this moment, the moment that the United States Senate put liberty on a ventilator, pass without some comment.

Dan Perrin (RedState) notes that not a fired up right, nor overwhelming public opinion, nor even the anger of Democrats’ liberal base could stop this bill from passing the Senate. Of course this surprises no one at this point. Haven’t the Obama administration and the congressional leadership proven time and time again that they couldn’t care less about what anyone else thinks about what they’re doing?

The kicker is that Harry Reid got to 60 votes for a bill that taxpayers don’t want by bribing senators with taxpayer money. Most have already heard about the $300 million in Medicaid funding that Reid secured for Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, but today she’s looking like your average street corner whore. Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson is the new high-priced callgirl, securing for Nebraska complete exemption for having to pay anything for Medicaid. Taxpayers in the other 49 states will now have to foot the bill.

Americans for Tax Reform has a list of the new taxes that ObamaCare will impose, including taxes that will hit those making less than $250,000 a year even though President Obama promised that no such taxation would occur. Presumably we can now expect the president to veto this bill. But don’t hold your breath. (By the way, Riehl World View’s favorite new tax is the 10% excise tax on tanning services. It’s replacing the “botax” on cosmetic surgery, and one wonders if this was due to the objections of Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, et al., who certainly need such surgery. In any event, my favorite new tax is the individual mandate surtax that Candidate Obama opposed).

Hillbuzz thinks that we need to start screaming and yelling at our congressmen and senators, in person. I will certainly be giving Charlie Wilson, Sherrod Brown, and George Voinovich an earful.

Little Miss Attila says, quite bluntly: “Fuck Ben Nelson.” Me too, but better than that: Fuck the whole damn government.

But, and this is important, it ain’t over ’till it’s over. Once the votes are in and the Senate version of ObamaCare passes, it will have to be reconciled with the House version and both chambers will have to vote for the final bill. The House version has a public option while the Senate version does not, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus might side with Howard Dean and the nutroots who want the bill killed.

Abortion is still proving contentious as well, because the Senate version is not as stringent as the House version in prohibiting federal funding for abortion coverage. Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak, the author of the House version’s abortion restrictions, finds the Senate version “unacceptable.” Should the final bill prove to be just as unacceptable, it’s possible that there will be enough pro-life Democrats in the House to defeat the final version of ObamaCare.

Call. Your. Congressman.

My predictions if the bill passes? Glad you asked:

  • A Republican House for the 112th Congress;
  • A Republican majority in both chambers for the 113th Congress (if, in fact, this doesn’t happen next year);
  • And Sarah Palin sworn in as the 45th President of the United States on January 20, 2013.

That may, in fact, be the only silver lining in all of this — that Democrats might seal their own defeat with this bill, and that it might happen in time to repeal the monstrosity. At least we hope.