ObamaCare was designed to a significant degree by a man who believes that living past the age of 75 is living too long. Think about that.

I wonder if this is true? That would be disturbing.

Labels: health care, politics

And economic reasons why it's a good idea.

Labels: economics, health care

And rightfully so, I think.

Labels: health care, trends

"We took a look recently and found that of the 25 largest health systems in the United States, 13 were religiously sponsored; that includes 11 Catholic systems," says Lois Uttley, who heads the nonprofit group MergerWatch, which works to protect women's access to reproductive health care when secular hospitals merge with religious ones. "So that means the likelihood of a patient encountering a Catholic restriction on contraception is pretty high and growing."

If you don't like what someone's giving you as an act of charity, I guess it's easier to go to the legislature and force them to give it to you on your terms, instead of using your own money.

Labels: catholic, contraception, health care

So happy International Women's Day! I was not aware of this day existing until ... today! But I am happy it exists. Apparently it has socialist roots, but that doesn't bother me.

So I have two suggestions for how to observe:

1) Read up on women's issues today, in the Church, in society, in politics, in terms of healthcare, education, religion, etc. There are so many places where women still need to  be treated with dignity and respect. We may think those places are far-away, but we really don't have to look to far to see how women's issues are still a hot topic right here in our own backyard.

This article by Fiorella Nash published by Faith magazine in 2009, is just as relevant today about the unique and challenging position of Catholic women. It's not what you may think- a lot of oppression of women can come from within the feminist movement itself, silencing dissonant voices that do not agree with the central tenant of feminism these days: total self-autonomy. This article is an excellent read, I highly recommend it!

Why, right here in New York State, a bill has been proposed that will make New York have the least restrictive abortion laws in the country. As a feminist myself, I suppose I am to laud this in the name of women's rights. However, this tramples on the rights of women doctors to follow their consciences, and forces them to perform third trimester abortions on demand, like the one that recently claimed the life of a 29-year-old New York school teacher, who had a late-term abortion in Maryland after a poor diagnosis of the baby. When self-autonomy and rights to our bodies involves high risk procedures that can kill a perfectly healthy mother along with her child, rendering her surviving husband and two children wife and motherless, I would rather NOT have that freedom in our society.

2) Second way to observe International Women's Day: Take action! Email your state representatives about the Abortion Expansion Bill, letting them know that you believe this law would further put women at risk for coercive abortions and physical harm, rather than foster a pro-woman and pro-family society that values the family, motherhood, and children.

Donate money to Catholic Relief Services, or another charitable organization, that helps women in third world countries meet their basic needs of sanitation, food, shelter, and education. Or get involved through volunteer work, such as serving women at a local soup kitchen or shelter.

I am a graduate of Sarah Lawrence College, and have considered myself a feminist since high school. Yet, I often feel that I am considered "the enemy" and my opinions are treated with horror by my pro-abortion-rights friends. Similarly, there are some men (and women) in the church, who treat the word "feminist" like it is a dirty word, something completely incompatible with Catholic values. I believe that I, and millions of other Catholic women, would argue that Catholic values WITHOUT feminism is incompatible. But feminism does NOT simply mean unfettered abortion and reproductive technology access. It was NOT about this to begin with, but was about access to the vote, the workplace, and higher education. Women still need wider access to many fields, and stronger laws protecting the family. Family values HELP women and society, by making healthcare, education, and childcare, more affordable, and putting in place stronger maternity and paternity leave laws, etc.

I am so glad I read Nash's article. I do believe that I myself need to be more outspoken about being feminist and Catholic, and to take more action myself on these issues that lie close to my heart.

Labels: catholic, feminism, health care, politics, prolife

From our Dutch friends:

Two core principles governed Hogewey's award-winning design and inform the care that's given here, says Van Zuthem. First, it aims to relieve the anxiety, confusion and often considerable anger that people with dementia can feel by providing an environment that is safe, familiar and human; an almost-normal home where people are surrounded by things they recognise and by other people with backgrounds, interests and values similar to their own. Second, "maximising the quality of people's lives. Keeping everyone active. Focusing on everything they can still do, rather than everything they can't. Because when you have dementia, you're ill, but there may really not be much else wrong with you."

Better than the nursing home experience, I think.

Labels: health care

We petition the Obama administration to:

Rescind the HHS Dept. Mandate Requiring Catholic Employers to Provide Contraceptives/Abortifacients to Their Employees

Labels: catholic, contraception, health care, politics, prolife

You should throw a few dollars my way or perhaps attend one near you.

Labels: health care, public service announcement

Bishop is punishing the Sisters of St. Joseph for signing a letter lauding the health care reform by denying them access to any diocese or parish resources for promoting vocations. I find this a bit disturbing. Maybe all tax-paying citizens should be banned from Catholic church resources, since our taxes support war, the death penalty, and abortion. That'll teach 'em.

Labels: health care, religious life

An explanation from Bob Herbert, posted in the Op-Ed of the New York Times:

According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, less than 18 percent of the revenue will come from the tax itself. The rest of the $150 billion, more than 82 percent of it, will come from the income taxes paid by workers who have been given pay raises by employers who will have voluntarily handed over the money they saved by offering their employees less valuable health insurance plans.

Can you believe it?

And the entire nation had affordable health care, everyone had coverage, costs didn't rise, and people could choose to keep their current coverage if they wanted to. And everyone lived happily ever after.

Labels: health care, politics

Interestingly, in the New York Times today, a headline read "Catholic Health Group Backs Senate Abortion Compromise" but the headline on the New York Times website reads "Catholic Group Supports Senate on Abortion Aid." The second headline makes it sound as though Catholic groups are endorsing abortion funding, when really what they are endorsing is efforts to provide health care for the uninsured.

I found the theological discussion behind this interesting. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Catholic teaching states that one cannot support any evil, even if it is with the intention of supporting a seemingly greater good. For example, Catholic officials cannot advocate distribution of condoms in populations ridden with venereal disease, because it is an illicit form of birth control, even though condom use could arguably save many lives. So we cannot support a bill that even remotely supports abortion, even though that bill could save or at least improve millions of people's lives by providing health care to those without insurance.

Honestly, I find this confusing. From the way I understood it, federal funding of abortion seems very limited in the current bill, and can be eradicated on a state by state basis. That seems pretty good to me. But when I saw the second headline online, it made me reconsider. Does supporting this bill effectively support federal aid to abortion?

Isn't this all a moot point anyways? Don't our tax dollars already fund abortion? According to Planned Parenthood's 2007/2008 Annual Report, the "non-profit" agency received 349.6 million dollars from government grants and contracts. This is not to mention the billions of money funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As far as I'm concerned, our tax dollars are already bathed in blood.

I certainly don't support funding abortion, but I do support efforts toward a health care reform that affirms the dignity and value of each individual and regards health as a right, not a privilege. Of course the ideal and the messy reality, even that promised by the most optimistic of reformers, are far from congruent. But at least it appears a step in the right direction.

I'm still sorting all this out, so any comments on the topic are greatly appreciated.

Labels: health care, morality, prolife