# Religious Stance on the UHC Bill **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2010, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-stance-on-the-uhc-bill/533063 "2010-03-19T21:20:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-stance-on-the-uhc-bill/533063/21 "2010-03-20T23:00:17Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > The Romans didn’t have public hospitals, at least not until the 4th century, when a Christian widow named Fabiola (later to become St. Fabiola), spent her own money to open one. I didn’t realize this, but apparently, there’s some academic debate going on as to whether the Romans had hospitals and to what extent they were publicly funded. FWIW, there’s [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital#Roman_Empire) from Wiki: > [@](#): > > The Romans created valetudinaria for the care of sick slaves, gladiators, and soldiers around 100 B.C., and many were identified by later archeology. While their existence is considered proven, there is some doubt as to whether they were as widespread as was once thought, as many were identified only according to the layout of building remains, and not by means of surviving records or finds of medical tools. Furthermore, the Wiki article on Fabiola only indicates that she built a hospital, not that it was the first hospital. However, even if we remove hospitals from the mix, I think it’s fair to say that the Romans at various times spent public money on health issues. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-stance-on-the-uhc-bill/533063/22 "2010-03-20T23:18:54Z")
> [@Caveat\_lector\_1](#): > > Is there a kind of governmental health care that you do think fits Christ’s teachings? What about this current plan opposes His teachings? Well, this is a query I have not really given much thought to before. I am inclined to say there probably are some governmental health care regimes consistent with Christ’s teachings. However, my point is nothing in Christ’s teachings mandate his followers advocate for or support government health care. One can oppose government health care and not contradict any of Christ’s teachings. In regards to your second question. Let’s assume, I reiterate assume, as true abortion is funded in the health care plan. I think this would contradict, perhaps none of Christ’s teachings, but Biblical doctrine. It is said in the OT God knew us while we were in our mother’s womb, he stitched us and put us together in our mother’s womb, thereby demonstrating we are God’s creation and even in the early stages of development in the womb, we are of high importance to God. Abortion interferes with this Godly process, indeeds deprives a life God was developing inside the womb. Hence, I think it can be inferred abortion is not consistent with the Biblical, or Biblical principles. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-stance-on-the-uhc-bill/533063/23 "2010-03-20T23:23:47Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > I’m not a Christian, but what about that whole render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s thing? Since the Romans had public hospitals, spas and baths, if you were rendering unto Caesar, then you were paying for public health care. I do not deny the Bible has a mandate for those adherents of the faith to obey human government, and paying taxes would come within this mandate, so long as the taxes themselves do not contradict some Biblical rule or command. However, I do not think we can equate the notion of obeying human government as a command to advocate or support some governmental action. ---
**Author:** ![Caveat\_lector\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@Caveat\_lector\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caveat_lector_1)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-stance-on-the-uhc-bill/533063/24 "2010-03-20T23:38:54Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > I am inclined to say there probably are some governmental health care regimes consistent with Christ’s teachings. However, my point is nothing in Christ’s teachings mandate his followers advocate for or support government health care. One can oppose government health care and not contradict any of Christ’s teachings. I’ll agree that one can. However, I think that it is important to carefully examine your reasons if you do. When speaking to individuals about this I’ve found that those who don’t oppose it for moral reasons sometimes oppose it for reasons of greed and uncharitableness. I hear “its my money and they can pay for their care on their own,” more than I am happy with. > [@NotreDame05](#): > > In regards to your second question. Let’s assume, I reiterate assume, as true abortion is funded in the health care plan. I think this would contradict, perhaps none of Christ’s teachings, but Biblical doctrine. It is said in the OT God knew us while we were in our mother’s womb, he stitched us and put us together in our mother’s womb, thereby demonstrating we are God’s creation and even in the early stages of development in the womb, we are of high importance to God. Abortion interferes with this Godly process, indeeds deprives a life God was developing inside the womb. Hence, I think it can be inferred abortion is not consistent with the Biblical, or Biblical principles. Okay, but as the issue of abortion seems to be a matter for debate with both sides claiming they don’t want it and that their bill is more pro-life I don’t think it is a very strong argument to say the bill is contrary to biblical teachings. I myself am a very pro-life Catholic and, as I’ve said above, I find the arguments that the bill will not fund abortions stronger than those that say it will. Are there any other issues in the bill? ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-stance-on-the-uhc-bill/533063/25 "2010-03-20T23:59:56Z")
> [@Caveat\_lector\_1](#): > > I’ll agree that one can. However, I think that it is important to carefully examine your reasons if you do. When speaking to individuals about this I’ve found that those who don’t oppose it for moral reasons sometimes oppose it for reasons of greed and uncharitableness. I hear “its my money and they can pay for their care on their own,” more than I am happy with. > > I myself am a very pro-life Catholic and, as I’ve said above, I find the arguments that the bill will not fund abortions stronger than those that say it will. > > Are there any other issues in the bill? > [@](#): > > Okay, but as the issue of abortion seems to be a matter for debate with both sides claiming they don’t want it and that their bill is more pro-life I don’t think it is a very strong argument to say the bill is contrary to biblical teachings. Well, amidst the apparent confusion over this issue, I think a Christian, uncertain and incapable of actually determining whether the legislation does fund abortion, would be wise, justified, and correct to oppose the health care plan. > [@](#): > > Are there any other issues in the bill? Well, I have philosophical and constitutional objections, both of which probably exceed the scope of this thread and I do not want to go off on a tangent. However, I will give you some hints without derailing the thread. I find Nozick’s ideas in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, regarding the redistribution of wealth, very persuasive. Second, I appeal to originalism when interpreting the U.S. Constitution, which necessarily means I find many provisions in the proposed health care legislation objectionable because they are contrary to the U.S. Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-stance-on-the-uhc-bill/533063/26 "2010-03-21T13:11:45Z")
I don’t know about the religious community, but in general it is trust in God, not the state, to meet the needs of the people. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-stance-on-the-uhc-bill/533063/27 "2010-03-21T18:25:56Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > Well, amidst the apparent confusion over this issue, I think a Christian, uncertain and incapable of actually determining whether the legislation does fund abortion, would be wise, justified, and correct to oppose the health care plan. The confusion is caused by people lying about the contents of the bills. I’m pretty sure there’s something in the Bible about lying. Anyone who opposes this legislation based on lies is a deeply immoral person, AFAIC. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-stance-on-the-uhc-bill/533063/28 "2010-03-21T19:28:53Z")
I also found this thread which discusses what the OT actually says about abortion. Since I’m not versed in Christian theology, I can’t really argue for or against any viewpoints in that thread, but my takeaway from it is that the OT is fairly unclear as to the morality of abortion. > **[Does the Bible explicity mention abortion?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=361825)** > > Does the Bible explicitly mention abortion anywhere? If so, does it prohibit it? How about birth control? Both abortion and birth control methods were available at least in New Testament times (of uncertain effectiveness of course, but at least... Of course, whether or not abortion is moral from an OT perspective is an independent issue from what the bills in Congress actually say. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-stance-on-the-uhc-bill/533063/29 "2010-03-21T21:15:01Z")
Apparently, this is the [text](http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/white-house-statement-on-abortion-compromise.php?ref=fpblg) of the Executive Order that is part of the compromise for the passage of the health care legislation (link goes to TPM). Here’s language from the order: > [@](#): > > The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules. So, this Executive Order, which apparently is the grand compromise, reaffirms that community centers are restricted by the act. Now, we won’t know what exactly ends up being in the final act until it hits the President’s desk, but if it turns out Stupak and Co. are willing to settle for this language (as opposed to modification to the Senate bill), then to me that will indicate that they have been lying all along. If the final act does turn out to have additional language outside of what’s in this Executive Order, that’s the only way I will believe that they have been arguing in good-faith and not intentionally lying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-stance-on-the-uhc-bill/533063.md?page=1)