The most memorable line since Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook" has just come out of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Ta da: "I'm not trying to get anyone off the hook here."
That telling quote comes from George Sheldon, acting assistant secretary for HHS's Administration for Children and Families. Sheldon offered his defense to Washington Post writer Jerry Markon for a front page story on Nov. 1.
Markon's story investigated how the grant process at HHS was manipulated to keep an office of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) from receiving an award to serve victims of human trafficking. USCCB's Migration and Refugee Services (MRS) had scored high enough to be awarded a federal grant to continue its very successful anti-trafficking program. But the decision was "overturned," so to speak, when Sharon Parrott, a top adviser to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, stepped in to "have a dialogue" (her words) in the process because the award would go through a Catholic agency. Their problem? The Catholic Church -- though providing food, shelter and legal and other medical services for trafficking victims more effectively than any other -- is forbidden by conscience from referring those victims for abortion, sterilization or contraceptives. So much for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other federal legislation that protects conscience, not to mention ordinary fair-play in picking grant recipients.
According to the first version of Markon's article, which appeared on the Washington Post website on Oct. 31, the decision caused controversy within HHS. The article stated that "HHS policies spell out that career officials usually oversee grant competitions and select the winners, giving priority consideration the review board's judgment. The policies do not prohibit political appointees from getting involved, through current and former employees said it is unusual, especially for high-level officials."
Sheldon, who in the spirit of political loyalty apparently was willing to fall on his paperclip for higher-ups, told Markon: "I don't think there was any undue influence exerted to make this grant go one way or the other." He added, "Ultimately I felt it was my responsibility -- and I'm not trying to get anyone off the hook here -- to do what I thought was in the best interest of these victims."
Surely Sharon Parrott, who according to the HHS website is one of three counselors to Secretary Sebelius and advises on human services policy, and Secretary Sebelius herself must be grateful for such fealty as they promote abortion politics over real care for trafficking victims. They opted for far weaker agencies, according to the grant scoring process, and awarded grants to USCRI and Tapestri, which "scored significantly below" MRS, the Post reported. And Sheldon wants us to believe this is "in the best interests of the victims"? Now that is loyalty!
Such political interference could irk career people at HHS who know what they are doing and want to avoid the political mire. Their concerns were reported to the Inspector General, according to the Post.
The original story on the web, which was later scrubbed of some quotes for whatever reason, was even more telling than what appeared in print.
Said the original online version (still available on Yahoo here):
"But some HHS staffers objected to the involvement of the secretary's office, saying the goal was to exclude the Catholic bishops, individuals familiar with the matter said."It was so clearly and blatantly trying to come up with a certain outcome," said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak to the media. "That's very distasteful to people."
To say the least. Unfairness is distasteful; revictimizing trafficking victims is abhorrent.
One also wonders if it can be legal. Not that anyone's trying to put anyone on the hook.
Follow Sister Mary Ann Walsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/USCCB
USCCB News:USCCB Urges Rescission of HHS Contraceptive ...
USCCB Action Alert: Conscience Rights Violated by Sweeping HHS ...
This is not "anti-religious" or "anti-Catholic" - it's simply a matter of good stewardship of public funds. Why should good taxpayer money be used to buy half a loaf when a whole loaf can be had for the same money? No one is suggesting forcing the victims of sexual trafficing to have abortions or sterilization nor use of contraceptives.
And, by the way, I'm a non-denominational Christian who abhors any religious group trying to force their own allegedly moral and/or religious codes onto everyone. USCCB claims they're "forbidden by conscience". I, for one, wish they'd send their moral compass in for repair so it would include being forbidden by conscience to enable sexual predation on children. Perhaps then their claims of forbidden by conscience would ring more true.
Why should any one respect the beliefs of the church when the church does not respect the beliefs of others?
Your "Church" (and I use that term VERY loosely) seems to think that they are owed money from the people of this country to foist their "religious" beliefs on those who don't agree with them. Not so, dear.
Your "Church" wants to "help" these victims of human trafficking? Go ahead. No one is stopping you. But guess what? You can do it on your own dime - not mine. The fact that your organization is, bar none, the wealthiest on the entire planet means you are perfectly capable of doing so without having to receive any money from ME.
I think I had it on 8-track tape! LOL.
When the undue influence was being exerted to make things go the OTHER way, in defiance of the facts on the ground and the best practices of social science, that was perfectly all right because there was a higher purpose, the end justified the means, and so it wasn't considered wrong. Unfortunately, once undue influence has established a policy, applying undue influence to overturn it also becomes acceptable.
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7
The Catholic Church has an absolutely right to uphold the moral code it believes to be right and to attempt to persuade people ot follow it. It has ZERO right to subvert our government to enforce its particular beliefs and ZERO right to ask the taxpayers to foot the bill.
Most people have given up the medieval belief that humans exist because God likes to SAVOR their pain, and are tired of the Church's constant striving to maximum the amount of suffering in the world.
"Markon's story investigated how the grant process at HHS was manipulated to keep an office of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) from receiving an award to serve victims of human trafficking. USCCB's Migration and Refugee Services (MRS) had scored high enough to be awarded a federal grant to continue its very successful anti-trafficking program. But the decision was "overturned," so to speak, when Sharon Parrott, a top adviser to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, stepped in to "have a dialogue" (her words) in the process because the award would go through a Catholic agency. Their problem? The Catholic Church -- though providing food, shelter and legal and other medical services for trafficking victims more effectively than any other -- is forbidden by conscience from referring those victims for abortion, sterilization or contraceptives. So much for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and other federal legislation that protects conscience, not to mention ordinary fair-play in picking grant recipients."
This is where the scandal comes in...& what I'm hearing from the above is, "I really don't care..."
And while it's good to hear that MRS is good at delivering all the services they *choose* to deliver, it's completely understandable that there would be concern that it refuses to deliver all the services the recipients may *need*. Telling someone in a rape or prostitution situation that they can't have access to reproductive health care is a clear case of choosing your own political agenda over the cries of the needy. You may choose to paint this concern as anti-Catholic bias, but it's really just a clear-eyed look at how best to serve desperate women.
Your sarcasm is ugly and misdirected. Who is "re-victimizing" trafficking victims - officials who try to ensure that women who have been horribly enslaved once again regain full control over their bodies, or an organization that tries to exert continued control over those bodies even as it "rescues" them?
Indeed.
If these victims are able to get help in anyway, they are trying to get out, not trying to find ways to make it easier to stay in. They need to KNOW about ALL the options for whatever their situation is. Then they can decide. Including a pamphlet about aboriton in the handfull of other pamphlets is not forcing someone to have an abortion.