The Annual Catholic Healthcare Providers Conference: Caring for People With Disabilities Using Dignity, Advocacy and Hope

A program designed in cooperation with the National Catholic Partnership on Disability

Featured Speakers:

Stephen Mikochik

Dr. Marie T. Hilliard

Connie Rakitan

More information to come.

Following public criticisms of new federally-funded health insurance plans that would have covered elective abortions in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a statement that the agency will act to exclude abortion from this program. Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, chairman of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, welcomed the statement as averting an “alarming precedent” and called for permanent law to exclude abortion from all programs under the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).

“We welcome this new policy,” the Cardinal said, “while continuing to be gravely concerned that it was not issued until after some states had announced that pro-abortion health plans were approved and had begun to enroll patients.”

“This situation illustrates once again the need for Congress to enact legislation clearly stating once and for all that funds appropriated by PPACA will not pay for abortions or for insurance coverage that includes abortion,” Cardinal DiNardo said. “The issue of government involvement in the taking of innocent human life should not remain subject to the changeable discretion of executive officials or depend on the continued vigilance of pro-life advocates.”

“It is vitally important for people with serious medical conditions who have been unable to obtain coverage to receive the help offered by programs such as this – and for them to be assured that their coverage will be life-affirming, not life-threatening,” the Cardinal concluded.

The full text of his statement follows:

This week it was reported that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had approved a new high-risk health insurance program for residents of Pennsylvania that by its terms would cover abortions without meaningful limits. This federal program, established by the

new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), will provide health services until 2014 to uninsured persons with pre-existing conditions. The Pennsylvania plan, while purporting not to fund “elective” abortions, made clear in its text that all abortions that satisfy the requirements of certain Pennsylvania statutes (i.e., all abortions that are not illegal in that state) would be covered, and reimbursed, with a combination of private premiums and federal funds drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This first announcement that $160 million in federal funds would be used to provide pro-abortion coverage raised an alarming precedent. Later the news also became public that the state of New Mexico would be covering “elective abortions” in its federal high-risk pool, which was already accepting enrollees.

Last night, however, HHS reacted to public criticisms by announcing that it will act to exclude abortion from this federally funded program, in accord with the assurances that Secretary Sebelius and President Obama have repeatedly made that PPACA will not be used to promote abortion. We welcome this new policy, while continuing to be gravely concerned that it was not issued until after some states had announced that pro-abortion health plans were approved and had begun to enroll patients. This situation illustrates once again the need for Congress to enact legislation clearly stating once and for all that funds appropriated by PPACA will not pay for abortions or for insurance coverage that includes abortion. Such legislation would mirror the Hyde amendment and similar provisions which prevent such abortion funding in all other federal health programs.

In this program as in others, the issue of government involvement in the taking of innocent human life should not remain subject to the changeable discretion of executive officials or depend on the continued vigilance of pro-life advocates. It is vitally important for people with serious medical conditions who have been unable to obtain coverage to receive the help offered by programs such as this – and for them to be assured that their coverage will be life-affirming, not life-threatening.

WASHINGTON—The U.S. bishops called for steps to protect the lives of the most vulnerable, provide fairness for immigrants and guarantee conscience protections for individual and institutions in a statement on health care reform issued May 21.

The statement was offered by Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities; Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice, Peace and Human Development, and Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Immigration.

“Following enactment of the health care reform legislation, our challenge remains formidable but in some ways is simpler,” the bishops said. “Since the battle over the bill is over, the defects can be judged soberly in their own right, and solutions can be advanced in Congress while retaining what is good in the new law. Indeed, any failure to do so would only leave these genuine problems as ammunition for those who prefer total repeal of the law.”

The bishops said the current situation “provides a new opportunity for the Catholic community to come together in defense of human life, rights of conscience and fairness to immigrants so we will have a health care system that truly respects the life, dignity, health and consciences of all.”

The statement follows.

Setting the Record Straight

As the Chairmen of the three committees most directly involved in the efforts of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on health care reform, we are writing to set the record straight on some important issues raised during and after final consideration of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” this spring.

From our first statement to Congress a year ago (http://usccb.org/sdwp/national/2009-05-usccb-health-care-statement.pdf) to Cardinal George’s March 23rd, 2010 statement about the enactment of a “profoundly flawed” final bill, the position of our Conference has been unified and consistent. Reflecting decades of advocacy on behalf of universal access to health care, the bishops were clear in calling for health care reform as a moral imperative and urgent national priority. We called for reform that would make health coverage affordable for the poor and needy, moving our society substantially toward the goal of universal coverage. We were equally clear in stating that this must be done in accord with the dignity of each and every human person, showing full respect for the life, health and conscience of all.

Specifically we insisted that the provisions of the Hyde amendment and other longstanding current laws, which forbid federal funding of abortion and of health plans that cover abortion, must be preserved in this or any new legislation. Likewise, we sought to have longstanding policies of respect for rights of conscience applied to this legislation. Americans must retain in new legislation the rights they had before its enactment. These include the full range of protections regarding the right to provide and purchase health care in accord with their religious beliefs and moral convictions. In addition, since access to basic health care is a right inherent in each human person, as acknowledged both in Catholic social teaching and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, legislation must not unfairly exclude immigrants from health coverage (January 26, 2010 Letter to the House).

Apparently, because we always presented these criteria together and insisted that each had profound moral implications, some thought the bishops might ultimately be persuaded to abandon one or the other in response to political pressures from left or right. Some hoped or feared that we would join with those who reject the need for vigorous government action to reform our ailing health care system. Others hoped or feared that, for the “greater good” of making progress on health care, we would neglect or deny the rights of the most vulnerable members of our society, including unborn children who have no voice and of immigrants.

There was never any chance that the bishops would do any of these things. We will never cease to advocate for everyone, beginning with the most needy, to have access to health care. We will never conclude that we must accept what is intrinsically evil so that some good may be achieved. Specifically we reject the argument made to us by some Catholics that expanding health care coverage justified setting aside our longstanding opposition to government participation in elective abortions or weakening rights to life and freedom of conscience. Catholic teaching rejects any idea that the weakest or “disposable” members of society must be forgotten to serve alleged “greater goods.” Arguments of this sort undermine the common good. Our vision of the common good embraces the good for each and every member without exception, beginning with those who are weakest and most vulnerable.

Ultimately the House of Representatives approved a health care reform bill that the bishops welcomed for substantially meeting most of the principles and goods we were espousing. We hoped to address final concerns as the legislation moved forward. However, the Senate rejected the House legislation, including the key elements that we supported, and produced a bill that abandoned the very principles that we espoused: no expansion of abortion, protections for freedom of conscience and the rights of immigrants. With these foundational principles rejected, it was then announced that no further substantive changes were possible. From that moment on, the bishops were clear and consistent in saying that this “take it or leave it” offer was morally unacceptable and politically divisive. Whatever might be the positive aspects of the Senate bill, we had no choice but to oppose the Senate version as a matter of principle. As bishops we must faithfully proclaim the truth. We must defend the rights of the unborn and the weakest and most vulnerable among us. We must oppose the advance of elective abortion in our society, especially the use of government authority and funding to advance it, and we must speak out in favor of the rights of freedom of conscience for persons and institutions. We urged Congress to vote against this version of the bill, with the hope that together we could find a way to address our legitimate concerns in a bill which would thus have broader appeal and greater support. Unfortunately, the political will to do so did not emerge.

The final result is legislation that expands health care coverage, implements many needed reforms, and provides welcome support for pregnant and parenting women and adoptive families. Unfortunately it also perpetuates grave injustices toward immigrant families and makes new and disturbing changes in federal policy on abortion and conscience rights. We have documented the legislation’s serious flaws in several analyses available on the bishops’ web site, www.usccb.org/healthcare.

Since final passage of the legislation, we have been disturbed and disappointed by reactions inside and outside the Church that have sought to marginalize or dismiss legitimate concerns that were presented in a serious manner by us. Our clear and consistent position has been misrepresented, misunderstood and misused for political and other purposes. Our right to speak in the public forum has been questioned. Our teaching role within the Catholic Church and even our responsibility to lead the Church have come under criticism. All of us must be open to different points of view and recognize the legitimacy of serious criticism. However, whether from within or without the Catholic community, very often these critics lacked an understanding of these particular issues or of the moral framework that motivated our positions. Others did grasp the seriousness of the issues we were attempting to address. Yet other priorities, in our judgment, led them to accept an inaccurate reading of the proposed legislation. They gave credence to analyses by those who were likewise dedicated to minimizing important concerns so as to pass the legislation. In the end, they made a judgment that the moral problems in the new law – for example, the fact that the federal government, for the first time in decades, will now force Americans to pay for other people’s elective abortions – simply are not serious enough to oppose a particular health care reform bill.

We regret that this approach carried the day, as some overlooked the clear evidence or dismissed careful analysis and teaching on the morality of these matters. But making such moral judgments, and providing guidance to Catholics on whether an action by government is moral or immoral, is first of all the task of the bishops, not of any other group or individual. As Bishops, we disagree that the divergence between the Catholic Conference and Catholic organizations, including the Catholic Health Association, represents merely a difference of analysis or strategy (Catholic Health World, April 15, 2010, “Now That Reform Has Passed”). Rather, for whatever good will was intended, it represented a fundamental disagreement, not just with our staff as some maintain, but with the Bishops themselves. As such it has resulted in confusion and a wound to Catholic unity.

Following enactment of the health care reform legislation, our challenge remains formidable but in some ways is simpler. Since the battle over the bill is over, the defects can be judged soberly in their own right, and solutions can be advanced in Congress while retaining what is good in the new law. Indeed, any failure to do so would only leave these genuine problems as ammunition for those who prefer total repeal of the law. In this context we do not need agreement among lawmakers that the problems are serious enough to oppose the legislation – we only need agreement that the problems are real and deserve to be addressed. This provides a new opportunity for the Catholic community to come together in defense of human life, rights of conscience and fairness to immigrants so we will have a health care system that truly respects the life, dignity, health and consciences of all. We urge Catholics, members of Congress of all parties and others of good will to join us in advancing this worthy goal.

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities

Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice, Peace and Human Development

Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City Committee on Migration

Act Applies Hyde Amendment to New Funds Fixing Health Care a Legislative Goal of U.S. Bishops

WASHINGTON—Congress should support a bipartisan bill that will remedy the abortion and conscience flaws in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), according to the Chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities. In a May 20 letter to Congress, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston said PPACA was an important step toward ensuring access to health coverage for all Americans but was “profoundly flawed in its treatment of abortion, conscience rights, and fairness to immigrants.” He urged members to support H.R. 5111, sponsored by Reps. Joseph Pitts (R-PA) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL) with 91 other House members, and added, “Efforts to ensure that our health care system truly serves the life, health and conscience of all will be a legislative goal of the Catholic bishops in the months to come.”

This legislation, wrote Cardinal DiNardo, “will bring PPACA into line with policies on abortion and conscience rights that have long prevailed in other federal health programs” by ensuring PPACA funds are covered by the Hyde Amendment, along with other provisions.

Cardinal DiNardo said those who believe President Obama’s executive order addressed these concerns should support the new bill, as the legislation would codify and strengthen the order. H.R. 5111 addresses abortion and conscience issues not taken up in the executive order, and remedies its reinforcement of “problematic aspects of the Act, such as its providing federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortions,” he said.

With PPACA now passed into law, Cardinal DiNardo said, “Problems of abortion and conscience in the legislation can be addressed on their own merits, not greeted by false charges that any such effort must be aimed at preventing passage of the Act.” He added, “If these genuine problems are not addressed in their own right, they will be taken up and used as ammunition by those who favor repealing PPACA outright, which would eliminate the positive as well as negative aspects of the new law.”

He also reiterated the bishops’ call for “a reformed health care system that respects the life, health and conscience of all.”

Full text of the letter follows:

May 20, 2010

Dear Member of Congress:

With the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), our country took an important step toward ensuring access to health coverage for all Americans. However, as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has explained in past letters and analyses, the final Act approved on March 22 was profoundly flawed in its treatment of abortion, conscience rights, and fairness to immigrants (see www.usccb.org/healthcare). Efforts to ensure that our health care system truly serves the life, health and conscience of all will be a legislative goal of the Catholic bishops in the months to come.

Reps. Joseph Pitts (R-PA) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL) with 91 other House members have made a significant contribution to this important task, by co-sponsoring bipartisan legislation to remedy PPACA’s serious problems on abortion. This legislation (H.R. 5111), based on the health care reform bill approved by the House last fall, will bring PPACA into line with policies on abortion and conscience rights that have long prevailed in other federal health programs.

H.R. 5111 will do the following:

(1) Ensure that all funds authorized or appropriated by PPACA are covered by the longstanding policy of the Hyde amendment against funding abortions except in cases of life endangerment or rape/incest. The Act currently appropriates billions of dollars in new funds for health services without limiting use of these funds for elective abortions.

(2) Prevent federal funds from subsidizing health plans that cover abortions beyond the Hyde exceptions, so PPACA will follow the policy that already governs Medicaid and Medicare, Children’s Health Insurance Program, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and other programs where federal funds combine with other funds to support health coverage. Like the Stupak amendment approved by the House last fall, this will not prevent anyone from purchasing a health plan covering abortions (or separate coverage for abortion itself) with nonfederal funds.

(3) Restore the conscience provision on abortion approved by the House last November (sec. 259 of H.R. 3962), modeled on the Weldon amendment that has been part of the annual Labor/HHS appropriations bills since 2004. This will ensure that federal, state and local governmental entities receiving federal funds under PPACA may not discriminate against health care providers who decline involvement in abortion. PPACA’s clause allowing states to require provision of services in some cases (sec. 1303(d)) will also be subject to this conscience clause.

(4) Close a loophole in the Act’s non-preemption clause on state laws (sec. 1303(c)(1) of PPACA), so state laws restricting abortion or protecting conscience rights will not be preempted by PPACA. Currently the Act only protects state laws related to abortion coverage or procedural requirements for abortions.

(5) Clarify PPACA’s clause on preserving other federal laws (sec. 1303(c)(2)) so laws restricting abortion or abortion coverage as well as laws on conscience rights are preserved.

Some may assume these goals are already achieved through President Obama’s executive order of March 21 on abortion funding in PPACA. To the extent that this is so, of course, it is not an argument against H.R. 5111, because it would merely codify those elements of the President’s policy. However, the executive order does not address, or claim to address, several of the problems cited above. On other issues it even reinforces problematic aspects of the Act, such as its providing federal subsidies for health plans that cover abortions. Of course the Act’s policy of merely “segregating funds” within such plans violates the federal abortion policy governing every other federal program, and still forces every American who purchases such plans to pay for other people’s abortions.

The executive order also claims to apply the Hyde Amendment to the funds that PPACA authorizes and appropriates for Community Health Centers, although the Act clearly does not apply the Hyde Amendment to these funds. The question here is whether the President has the legal authority to do so, given a long line of federal court decisions construing similar statutes to fund abortion services unless Congress has explicitly stated otherwise. When courts have handed down such decisions, it has sometimes taken years of litigation and debate to resolve the issue – years during which federal funds were used for hundreds of thousands of abortions a year. Given this history, we should not gamble these lives on a guess as to how a federal judge will respond to the first lawsuit seeking a federally funded abortion at a Community Health Center. This serious problem requires a statutory solution.

With the enactment of PPACA, the task of keeping the federal government out of the abortion business can now be pursued with less distraction from other issues and agendas. Problems of abortion and conscience in the legislation can be addressed on their own merits, not greeted by false charges that any such effort must be aimed at preventing passage of the Act. To the contrary: If these genuine problems are not addressed in their own right, they will be taken up and used as ammunition by those who favor repealing PPACA outright, which would eliminate the positive as well as negative aspects of the new law. In short, to support this legislation, members of Congress need not agree that these changes are essential to make the Act acceptable – though that is our conviction. They need only agree that the changes are worthwhile.

I therefore urge members of both parties who support rights of conscience and the policy of the Hyde amendment to support and co-sponsor H.R. 5111. Please help give us a reformed health care system that respects the life, health and conscience of all.

Sincerely,

Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

From the National Catholic Partnership on Disability:

May is a good time to talk about mental illness and the effects on the individual and the family. Some suggestions:

Use the bulletin articles on the NCPD website (click here).
Use the article on “Stained Glass Window” that talks about inclusion.
Prayers of the faithful (click here).

Celebrate St Dymphna’s feast day May 15th (see homily – can be modified to suit local needs and used in an article for bulletin or other publication).

Other Resources:

NCPD – www.ncpd.org
Mental Health Ministries – www.mentalhealthministries.net
Archdiocese Chicago Mental Illness Ministries – www.miministry.org
NCPD Webinar on suicide
NCPD Webinar on the sacramental life of people with mental illness
NCPD Webinar supporting people with mental illness in your parish

Some teachers like to pose riddles to their students on “lifeboat ethics.” People of various ages and professions – a sea captain, a cabin boy, etc. — are drifting at sea in a lifeboat, with limited provisions, and we have to decide which passenger to kill so the others can survive.

The final situation with health care reform this spring might have been crafted to stump these students. The House of Representatives had passed a reform bill that the Catholic bishops commended for ensuring access to health care for the poor and immigrants, and for respecting longstanding current laws on abortion and conscience rights. But the Senate refused to consider this bill. Instead it approved its own version that was deficient in all these areas, and said: This is our final answer. Due to a change of one Senate seat, that chamber said it no longer had 60 votes to pass a bill with further substantive changes (though it could make purely fiscal changes under a “reconciliation” process requiring a simple majority).

So the final “take it or leave it” bill could be improved on affordability for the poor. But it would perpetuate injustices to both legal and undocumented immigrants. It excluded a conscience rights provision that keeps government entities in other federal health programs from discriminating against doctors, nurses and hospitals that don’t provide abortions. It refused accommodations for religious institutions that need to purchase health coverage consistent with their moral values. And it violated the Hyde amendment, which keeps every other federal program from funding elective abortions and health plans that cover such abortions. The federal government would now subsidize plans covering abortion, and require those plans to collect a special fee for such abortions from every purchaser whether they object or not. Finally, the bill appropriated its own new funds from the Treasury that were exempt from the Hyde policy, including billions of dollars for community health centers serving the poor.

So who would the Catholic bishops throw off the boat? Uninsured citizens, or immigrants and the unborn? The answer was: None of the above. The bishops refused to choose between one moral wrong and another. They reaffirmed that all the human lives at stake were of inestimable worth, and that Congress must pursue reform in ways that do not attack innocent human life, forget conscience rights or ignore immigrants.

Congress did not have the political will to do this, so passed a law that does many welcome things but is also, as USCCB president Cardinal Francis George said, “profoundly flawed.” Repairing those flaws will take enormous effort in months and years to come.

Some expected the bishops to give in, to conclude that expanding health care for the uninsured “outweighed” the legislation’s moral flaws. But Catholic moral reasoning doesn’t work that way. As the U.S. bishops explained in their Faithful Citizenship document in 2007, doing good and avoiding evil are equally pressing demands. There is no “ceiling” to the good we are called to do for the poor and vulnerable, and their needs must never be forgotten – but there is a “floor” to that commitment, beginning with respect for the most fundamental good of the human person, life itself. In particular, we cannot “do good” by expanding direct attacks on innocent human life.  The rule for passing health care legislation is the same as the rule for medical ethics: First, do no harm.

The bishops surely knew that many would be disappointed, and some would see them as being unrealistic. But sometimes we get to change the world, and occasionally we can only keep the world from changing us. After all the “realists” have spoken, somebody still has to speak up for that cabin boy.

Mr. Doerflinger is Associate Director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

April 7, 2010

Dear Editor:

George Sinner is right about one aspect of the health care reform law.  It does try to make improvements in our health care system and it does provide new programs to help pregnant women, encourage adoption, and authorize funding for abstinence-only education.  These are provisions that, when offered separately, the U.S. Catholic bishops supported.

Sinner fails to understand, however, that in Catholic teaching no amount of good can justify something that is morally wrong.  Thus, torture cannot be justified by the results it might produce.  Intentionally killing civilians in combat is never right, even if it brings a quicker end to war.  Economic hardship cannot make acceptable the aborting of an unborn child.

In this case, one of the evils that cannot justify the new law is the funding of abortion.  Sinner dismisses that possibility, but he appears to rely solely on the language of the bill and ignores four decades of court decisions on abortion funding.  According to these decisions, prohibitions on abortion funding only exist when Congress expressly enacts the prohibition.  Rather than going to “great lengths” to enact a comprehensive prohibition, the new law expressly prohibits funding in just two circumstances.  This leaves the other funding streams in the bill subject to the court-mandated funding decisions.  This is not just Bishop Aquila’s interpretation, but the conclusion of legal advisors to the U.S. bishops, who have vastly more experience in the issue than Sinner. (For further explanation of the problems, see: http://ndcatholic.org/FAQs/index.html)

In his April 7 letter to the editor, Sinner says he is pained by Bishop Aquila’s position.  All of the nearly 200 bishops of the United States, however, are pained that legislation they desired for decades was fatally tainted by the lack of a complete ban on abortion funding, incomplete conscience protection, and unfair treatment of immigrants.   As longtime advocates of greater access to health care, the bishops would have liked to have supported the final bill.   But adherence to the teachings of the church and the principles they set out for genuine reform left them no choice.

Christopher Dodson

Executive Director

North Dakota Catholic Conference

Did the Catholic bishops of the United States support the final version of the health care reform law?

If the bishops really wanted health care reform, why didn’t they accept the bill as “less than perfect,” but better than nothing?

What are the abortion problems in the bill that passed?

Did the executive order signed by President Obama fix these problems?

Why did the bishops oppose the bill’s immigration provisions?

Does the new law mandate end-of-life counseling?

The North Dakota Catholic Conference continues to receive questions about the new health care reform law and the position of the U.S. Bishops.  In response, we have prepared a list of answers to these and other frequently asked questions.  Get it here: http://ndcatholic.org/FAQs/index.html

In a statement issued today, Most Rev. Samuel J. Aquila, bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Fargo, said the problems with the new health care reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, “are not mere shortcomings or imperfections, but grave and serious matters.”

“For decades, the Catholic Bishops of the United States have faithfully called for greater access to health care, especially for the poor and uninsured,” Bishop Aquila wrote. “However, the new law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, while seeking to expand this access, at the same time embraces language which allows for the violation of the sacredness of human life by the expansion of federal funding of abortion. Furthermore, there is no clear support for conscience protection in the law. These problems are not mere shortcomings or imperfections, but grave and serious matters.”

He noted that the “executive order, which some legislators used as reasoning for their ‘yes’ votes on the legislation” falls short. “The legal and policy advisors of the U.S. Catholic Bishops have noted, the executive order cannot and does not fix the statutory problems of funding abortion, it cannot and does not make up for the absence of conscience protections that are missing from the statute, and it does not strengthen existing conscience protections. Where the executive order purports to fix shortcomings in these areas, it is highly likely to be legally invalid; and where the order is highly likely to be legally valid, it does nothing to fix the shortcomings.”

Bishop Aquila said it “is truly tragic” that “some groups who call themselves ‘Catholic’ have come out in support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” He noted specifically the Catholic Health Association, Catholics United and some small groups of religious orders. “The influence of the groups was seen in a particular way in our state. Congressman Earl Pomeroy cited the encouragement of ‘Catholic nuns’ in defending his vote for the legislation.”

He continued, “The unfortunate reality for the past several years is that some Catholics on both sides of the aisle are more faithful to their political parties and ideological beliefs than to the teachings of Jesus Christ and his Church. Rather than being a leaven in their respective party and in society for the good, by ignoring the primacy of the truths of our Catholic faith, they pave the way for secularism and a culture of death.”

Read Bishop Aquila’s statement can be read in its entirety.

Read the USCCB analysis of the new law and executive memorandum.