Christians believe that every human being is created in the image and likeness of God, and caring for the body is one way of affirming this basic conviction about the holiness of life

The faithful are divided, however, when it comes to figuring out whether every person has the right to health care.

Some say that the government extending coverage to everyone follows the biblical instruction to care for the poor. Others say doing so will plunge the country into financial ruin by transforming charity from a private decision into a governmental policy.

While Christians agree that everyone should benefit from the advances of medical science, hammering out the details of how that should work has become a complicated and highly contentious debate.



Moral issue

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 15 percent of the American population – more than 45 million people – lack health insurance. Many fiscal conservatives dispute that number, claiming that young people who choose not to purchase health coverage and non-U.S. citizens are being counted.

Whatever the case, it’s clear that for an industrialized nation the U.S. has a high number of people living without medical insurance and that constitutes a moral issue for many Christians.

“Religious communities are already deeply involved in this issue,” said Sarah Moses who teaches medical ethics in the Department of Religion and Philosophy at the University of Mississippi.

Based on the stories of Jesus healing the sick and the accounts of the early church being a refuge for the infirm, Moses said Christians, in particular, “have always been at the forefront of trying to deliver health care to the marginalized.”

The Catholic Church operates more than 600 hospitals and nearly 500 long-term nursing home facilities in the U.S. According to Greg Patin, executive director of Catholic Charities in Mississippi, the debate over health care reform speaks to the essence of what it means to be a civilized society.

“Catholic social teaching teaches us that a society is to be judged by how we care for the most vulnerable members,” he said.

Catholic bishops have traditionally supported collective social initiatives aimed at helping the poor, and many have spoken in favor of some form of universal health care. In July, Episcopalians at their national convention passed a resolution favoring the now infamous “single-payer option,” a proposal that would eliminate competition between insurance providers by making the federal government the sole provider.

In August President Obama made national conference calls to religious leaders trying to rally support among people of faith for his plan but his efforts haven’t gained much traction among Christian conservatives.

The Tupelo-based American Family Association recently joined more than two dozen other conservative Christian organizations intent on defeating Obama’s plan. The Freedom Federation, which includes The Liberty Counsel and the Family Research Council, among others, has taken up the fight against universal health care alongside other issues like same-sex marriage and the curtailing of religious freedom.

Most Christians who oppose universal health concede that the current system needs some revision. They agree that they have the responsibility to care for society’s poor, but they see the legislation known as HR3200 as a governmental means of forcing them to do so.

“Absolutely, I am my brother’s keeper,” said Angela McGlowan, a Mississippi native and Fox News commentator.

McGlowan, who strongly opposes the plan being called “Obama care,” has spoken at TEA parties throughout Northeast Mississippi as well as at a forum on health care reform held at Good News Church in Tupelo in August.

Like many Christian conservatives, McGlowan, who attends Clear Creek Missionary Baptist Church in Oxford, believes caring for the poor should be the prerogative of individuals.

Universal health care, she believes, would essentially take charity out of the hands of individuals and put it on the shoulders of the proverbial “nanny state” where the burden would shared by all taxpayers. That, McGlowan said, would be a misappropriation of federal money as well as of the widespread and voluntary desire of Americans to help the less fortunate.

Hot buttons

While conservative and liberal Christians agree on many points within the health care debate, certain hot-button issues are cropping up that muddy the waters. Foremost among them is abortion, an issue that has divided Christians and society at-large for decades.

Catholic bishops strongly oppose possible inclusion of abortion coverage in any federal health care plan, but they also recognize the need to deal sensitively with issues pertaining to women’s health care as well as the importance of maintaining a consistent ethic of life.

Patin at Catholic Charities said his organization would not back reform which supported abortion or which interfered with the conscience of the provider. Although abortion is an important issue, Patin said, when the rhetoric around it is taken to extremes it has the potential to distract people from “the core belief that life, at all stages, is sacred and should be cared for.”

Many evangelicals distrust Obama’s plan and the place of abortion in it.

Last month the president said on national television that no federal dollars would be used to fund abortions. McGlowan believes the president’s statement is a kind of subterfuge.

She maintains that even if the legislation doesn’t contain a direct reference to abortion, it would permit the secretary of health and human services, Kathleen Sebelius, to define the parameters of women’s health care within the public option and that could include abortion. Other opponents say the House bill would permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions.

“People just want to be told the truth, to understand, and it’s politicians jobs to help them understand,” said McGlowan.

The bill now being considered by the Senate purposes to insure 94 percent of Americans, that’s 29 million who otherwise couldn’t afford health insurance, and it does not contain a public option.

Blurred lines

In August the Rev. Terry Garrett hosted the health care forum at his church on West Jackson Street. The event was a mixture of fiery, evangelical preaching tempered by the mostly cool and systematic presentations by several doctors and a lawyer. McGlowan spoke about the legislative process and how the agendas of politicians ultimately shape the issue. In the end, the line between a conversation about public policy and a religious revival was definitely blurred.

Moses at Ole Miss isn’t surprised that religion and politics are converging over this issue.

“Particularly since Roe v. Wade we’ve seen religious people becoming increasingly comfortable with engaging in highly public, heated debates about medical issues,” she said.

She noted a movement taking place today among pharmacists who are raising conscientious objections to dispensing birth control.

Political pundits have suggested that under the universal health care system doctors’ freedoms would be curtailed. As to whether physicians would be compelled under the plan to perform services to which they object, Moses said it isn’t likely.

“The trajectory of the law suggests, as has been the case again and again, that medical workers will be protected based on their faith convictions,” she said.

Garrett opened his church to the forum partly because he wanted people to understand what he sees as a life-changing matter.

Neither Garrett nor his wife, who lived in Canada for 14 years, have health insurance. He hopes people understand that he isn’t opposing universal health care because he wants to exclude others from having what he’s got.

“In Canada, the people in the wealthiest provinces did fine,” he said. “That’s what it will come down to in the U.S., states paying for this, and there just isn’t enough money.”

Patin at Catholic Charities is troubled by the partisan division that has surrounded the debate, and by the acerbic tone of a lot of what’s being said.

Patin realizes that pastors aren’t policy wonks. Without wading too deep into the legislative process he holds to a few fundamentals about the nature of health care, including that it should be universal and accessible to all, that is should protect the dignity of life from birth to natural death and that it should protect the conscience of the provider.

“It’s not about who proposes what, it’s about the principles of our faith being met,” said Patin. “We are not Democrats or Republicans, we are people of faith.”

Contact Daily Journal religion editor Galen Holley at 678-1510 or galen.holley@djournal.com