Denial of OK family planning aid highlights hypocrisy of “Catholic” Biden

The Biden Administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in late May, denied $4.5 million in funding to the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) for family planning services because state law protects the unborn from abortion. The Federalist Society aptly described HSS’ action HHS as “weaponizing its grant-giving power against states that refuse to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.”

This treatment of Oklahoma is not the first time the Biden administration denied aid to pregnant mothers and their born (and unborn) children in pro-life states. With Dobbs v. Mississippi Department of Health having returned the issue of abortion to the states, the Administration turned the principle of federalism on its head by essentially punishing Oklahoma, and previously Texas, for adopting pro-life public policies.

In August of 2022 the administration refused to expand Medicaid funding to mothers of newborns in Texas. Moreover, in July 2022, Biden signed an Executive Order basically ignoring the Hyde Amendment, first enacted in 1976 (and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1980 in Harris v. McCrae). The Hyde Amendment is a federal statute banning federal Medicaid funding for abortion, a position Biden long supported as a senator and later vice president, but has since repudiated.

Controversy emerged in Oklahoma on May 24, 2023 when officials of the OSDH announced that HSS rescinded the $4.5 million family planning grant under Title X of the Public Health Services Act. In so doing, HHS unlawfully ignored the language of Title X pursuant to which, “None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.”

As a result of HHS terminating the grant, the OSDH will be unable to provide such services to needy people by assisting with birth control, counseling, testing for sexually transmitted diseases and treatment, and other health services, to some 30,000 low-income individuals. Federal officials revoked the grant because they judged Oklahoma’s pro-life stance as being out of compliance because it protects the unborn.

On June 1, 2023, Republican Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma sent a letter on behalf of himself and fellow state party members, Senator Markwayne Mullin along with Representatives Frank Lucas, Tom Cole, Stephanie Bice, Kevin Hern, and Josh Brecheen to HHS Secretary Becerra demanding the “immediate reinstallation” of the funds to help the state’s residents to access health care. The letter noted that HHS’ mistaken “interpretation and application of the obligations of grantees under federal statute” will “substantially harm our constituency.” The letter further described the actions of HHS as demonstrating “willful ignorance and disregard of the underlying statute and applicable conscience protections, it is difficult to imagine a more egregious contradiction of the plain text of an implementing regulation than this.”

“Abortion is not family planning,” Lankford’s letter added, “it is family destruction. Every abortion takes an unborn child’s life. Oklahoma’s laws protect women and unborn children from the violence of abortion in the interest of promoting families, keeping Oklahomans safe, and protecting life.“ Lankford’s letter gave HHS until June 12, 2023 to provide documentation that it reinstated the grant but did not specify what further steps the legislators might take to challenge HHS’ actions.

In light of HHS’ actions under the self-professed “Catholic” Biden, two important questions arise. The first examines the duty of politicians who profess to be Catholics to adhere to Church teachings on moral issues such as abortion. The second considers the responsibility of leaders to demand accountability from professed Catholics when their words and actions demonstrate that they have little, if any, regard, for Church teachings.

Controversy has long surrounded Catholics who sought political office as critics feared they would impose their religious views on all by being beholden to Rome. To this end, while commenting on 260 attacks on Catholic facilities in 43 states since 2020, Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone eloquently mused that “universally ignored is [the nation’s] long, deep and sordid history of anti-Catholicism,” attitudes that persist in many ways.

While there is legitimate room for concern that politicians would impose their religious (or other) beliefs on the nation, this criticism has been leveled only at Catholics as a form of the bias referenced by Archbishop Cordileone. When a politician such as Biden promotes abortion, as much a value set as any religious belief, even in states with pro-life public policies, the voices critical of Christian teachings remain silent. Either way, this raises concerns about how politicians can, or should, balance their religious beliefs and obligations of their offices.

Turning to the present, as I have discussed at greater length previously, difficulties arise when Biden who, has, as noted, identifies himself as a devout Catholic. Archbishop Joseph Naumann, former Chair of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities, decried this description in light of Biden’s support for abortion and other positions inconsistent with Church teachings. Unlike the late Catholic politician Mario Cuomo, former Governor of New York, who casuistically sought to distinguish his private and public beliefs while in office, Biden has made no attempt to differentiate the two. Biden eschews Cuomo’s approach, apparently equating his private beliefs as a “Catholic” with his official public positions as President when speaking on abortion and gender ideology.

By bringing religion into the conversation, Biden’s misrepresentation of Church teachings turns the separation of emphasized by Kennedy on its ear. If anything, Biden’s words and policies opened the door to what should be a conversation about the relationship between the government and religion—so as to protect the latter from the former.

Politicians such as Biden sow confusion for Catholics and others by misrepresenting Church teachings, especially when, for example, he “criticized Florida’s regulation of transgender medical care for children and ban on gender ideology in the classroom, calling the measures ‘close to sinful.’” Even conceding that his words were hyperbolic, what gives Biden the authority to decide what is sinful?

Given how Biden seemingly speaks with impunity but for the occasional rebuke, it is unclear why Catholic leaders rarely hold him accountable for misrepresenting Church teachings. As an illustration of a public rebuke of a politician, Archbishop Cordileone emphasized that when he banned Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from receiving Communion in his archdiocese for her having caused scandal in light of her long-time vocal support for abortion, it was “pastoral, not political.” Although the number of Catholic bishops in the United States publicly supporting the Archbishop’s action has grown, public criticisms of Biden are few and far between.

How can, or should, Catholic leaders exercise their pastoral duty to correct erroneous remarks by politicians who are members of the Church? Just as religious leaders cannot lawfully interfere in the work of government outside the bounds of lawful advocacy and lobbying, neither should politicians addressing matters of faith and morals be allowed to do so erroneously, and with impunity, in ways that mislead and confuse others. At the very least, politicians such as Biden should make it clear that they are speaking, and acting, in their own capacity, not as practicing Catholics.

Moving forward, fairness dictates that members of the Catholic hierarchy should act, perhaps privately at first, to counsel politicians who misstate Church teachings of the potential harm and potential theological scandal by confusing listeners. Politicians should discontinue speaking or face potential public sanctions short of excommunication. Empowering Church leaders to correct politicians’ errors on matters of faith is not aimed at limiting their free speech or ability to challenge positions in their religions with which they disagree.

Having Church leaders ask politicians who speak on matters of faith to do so accurately would allow them to protect religion from the state, arguably fulfilling the First Amendment’s original intent by preventing public officials from spreading mistruths as a kind of reverse separation of Church and state. Put another way, just as the government cannot intrude on religion, public officials should not purport to speak authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. If politicians speak accurately on matters of religion, areas likely outside of their expertise, especially in their own faith traditions, they could help to stem the flow of disinformation about the Catholic position on abortion, in particular, an issue subject to a great deal of attention.

What this means, simply put, is that Biden should stop conveniently trotting out his faith by calling himself a devout Catholic, using it as a cover even when he knows, or certainly ought to know, of the unequivocal condemnation of abortion in Section 2271 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”

Even conceding that people are not always consistent in their public and private lives, political leaders such as the President should have the integrity to acknowledge their positions are out of step with Church teachings. Consequently, rather than hide behind a veneer of Catholicity while speaking misleadingly about its teachings and overstepping his moral authority because he is not a religious leader, Biden should be honest that he is not really a devout member of the Church or stop speaking out about its teachings. This should not be too much to ask of a President, is it?