Although Deal Hudson continues to criticize Sr. Carol Keehan for her naivete, it at least seems to me that she has been proven right in her support of the new health care bill by recent developments. Though he accuses her of misrepresentation, it seems that he is at least as guilty. In his most recent article, this is all he has to say about the new bill:
Planned Parenthood isalready crediting the health-care bill for the opening of a new clinic. What does Planned Parenthood know that Sister Keehan doesn’t? As Archbishop Naumann put it, her denial of the abortion funding is “either incredibly naïve or disingenuous.” Either way, the damage is already done.
However, this is what Yahoo has to say:
WASHINGTON – Abortion opponents fought passage of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul to the bitter end, and now that it’s the law, they’re using it to limit coverage by private insurers.
An obscure part of the law allows states to restrict abortion coverage by private plans operating in new insurance markets. Capitalizing on that language, abortion foes have succeeded in passing bans that, in some cases, go beyond federal statutes.
“We don’t consider elective abortion to be health care, so we don’t think it’s a bad thing for fewer private insurance companies to cover it,” said Mary Harned, attorney for Americans United for Life, a national organization that wrote a model law for the states.
Abortion rights supporters are dismayed.
“Implementation of this reform should be about increasing access to health care and increasing choices, not taking them away,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a member of the Senate leadership. “Health care reform is not an excuse to take rights away from women.”
Since Obama signed the legislation law March 23, Arizona and Tennessee have enacted laws restricting abortion coverage by health plans in new insurance markets, called exchanges. About 30 million people will get their coverage through exchanges, which open in 2014 to serve individuals and small businesses.
Three other states may act this year — Louisiana, Ohio and Oklahoma. Overall, there are 29 states where lawmakers or public policy groups expressed serious interest, Harned said.
Before the overhaul became law, five states had limits on private insurance coverage of abortion — Idaho, Kentucky, Missouri, North Dakota and Oklahoma. Abortion rights supporters are concerned that the list is growing as a result of the new federal law.
Who is the naive one?
Aaron Pidel, SJ
Anthony Lusvardi, SJ
Michae! Magree, SJ
Matthew Monnig, SJ
Nathan O'Halloran, SJ
Whosoever Desires 
We’ve been reading and trying to digest portions of the health care laws to advise our clients, and I’m amazed at how complicated and Byzantine the new laws are. We are rapidly reaching the point where it will be impossible to comply with the law.
As for abortion funding, I found the Destro letter pretty persuasive. Without the Hyde Amendment language, courts are going to force the federal funding of abortion.
Sr. Carol Keehan, of course. That hasn’t changed. Are you suggesting otherwise simply because some states are finding ways to assert pro-life policies DESPITE the new law? What about the states that don’t act? Besides, Paul is correct. Without the Hyde Amendment language, the courts will cram down federal funding of abortion. Archbishop Naumann’s correct.
The Hyde language is renewed every year for the budget. While this conceivably could change, that was true before HC reform passed.
The Hyde Amendment is going nowhere. The law was not created out of nowhere, but within relation to what is already in place. When talking about integral improvement, one must not compare to the goal, but where one is. That is the problem with the debates on this law. Other laws, when pro-lifers approve it, like the partial birth abortion laws, also “allow for abortions” for what is not covered in the law. Would one argue they are therefore pro-choice, pro-abortion laws?