Anyone who takes the time to do even a cursory review of liberal and conservative Web sites, blogs, tweets, and other forms of social media will quickly see that each side has accused the other of lying. President Barack Obama recently told a group of religious leaders that the major criticisms of his plan are “fabrications” constructed by “people who are bearing false witness.”

As the debate over health care–some might even say the future of America—deepens, I would like to think we could agree on two principles–principles that are being called for by both sides; principles that would solve this mess, but which seem to be in short supply.

Principle #1: Legislation must be written clearly so that there is absolutely no ambiguity about what Congress intends.

Principle #2: Those who are writing the legislation and/or explaining it to the American people must tell the truth about what is in the bill.

That sound reasonable, doesn’t it? Let’s consider how this might be applied to current events.

Principle #1 Applied: Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, told ABC News (http://bit.ly/bdCBP) that Section 1233 of HR 3200, which calls for end-of-life counseling every five years, will probably be dropped because of opponents’ “scare tactics”–even though she says the only reason for its insertion into the plan is to ensure that doctors are reimbursed for this important end-of-life consultation. That purpose certainly sounds reasonable.

So why the objections?

Connie Hair, former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks, Arizona Republican, explains at least one of the fears (http://bit.ly/4nQtm). She notes that Rep. Earl Blumenauer, Oregon Democrat, who claims credit for drafting this section, not only “filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Oregon defending the ‘assisted suicide’ law,” but if you go to his Web site www.earlblumenauer.com, you’ll find a link to a “ghastly 1960s Harper’s Magazine special supplemental entitled “The Crisis in American Medicine” which promotes euthanasia— both voluntary and involuntary.”

The article advocates leaving the choice to euthanize a patient to doctors, saying: “This is probably the wisest policy provided the doctors do not take a rigid or idolatrous view of their role as ‘life’ savers.”

Whether or not one believes there is something to fear here, there is an easy way for advocates of the president’s plan to resolve the impasse–and it has been used by Congress before.

Wesley J. Smith of First Things magazine, who has been covering this debate extensively, notes that last year the Kennedy/Brownback bill was amended “to prevent genetic counseling of pregnant women carrying a Down baby from being directed toward abortion.” So, he asks, why can’t lawmakers simply put in language that clarifies that this provision will not be used to direct people toward refusing or accepting care.

Mr. Smith also suggests that it be clearly stated that the counseling is entirely voluntary; that patients will not lose benefits if they refuse counseling or do not sign an advance directive; and that no service provider will lose compensation for not providing counseling. (http://bit.ly/IguEM)

If the intent of lawmakers really is to provide compensation for doctors who provide end-of-life counseling for those who want it, make the language clear and we can all move on. If this is not our lawmakers’ intent, then may I suggest that they clearly state their intention. Then we can at least fight over an actual issue rather than over who’s telling the truth.

Principle #2 Applied: Now let’s turn to the marketing of health care to the American people. In a recent phone call with religious leaders, Mr. Obama said: “You've heard that this (healthcare legislation) is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true." (http://bit.ly/2fRqWx) He made a similar statement in his recent address to Congress.

I want to believe the president. But what if I told you that the legislation calls for the mandatory “premiums,” which the government will collect from you, to be put into a separate fund from the “taxes” the government will collect from you to pay for this health care–and that the dollars in the “premium” pile rather than the “tax” pile will be used to fund abortions? Would you feel misled?

White House Correspondent Michael Scherer who writes for Time magazine, hardly a bastion of conservatism, says that while the statement that Mr. Obama made about no taxes being used to fund abortions is “technically correct,” it certainly “does not tell the whole story.” (http://bit.ly/bdCBP)

“The problem is that all those who sign up for the public option would have to pay into the account for abortion coverage, an amount ‘not less than $1 per month,’ according to the legislation,” he writes in the August 24 issue. “So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage. [T]he new system differs markedly from the old federal policy of not involving the government in abortion services unless issues of rape, incest or the life of the mother are at play.”

Factcheck.org puts it even more bluntly: “As for the House bill as it stands now, it’s a matter of fact that it would allow both a ‘public plan’ and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions.” (http://bit.ly/2fRqWx)

Even a member of Mr. Obama’s own party, Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, told Mr. Scherer in a Time article that Mr. Obama doesn’t understand the bill or “if he is aware of it, and he is making these statements, then he is misleading people."

Here’s a case in which we have a “fact”–and then we have the “truth.”

If Mr. Obama wants his healthcare plan to include a provision that taxpayers fund abortions, then let’s state that upfront and argue over the issue–rather than over who’s telling the truth. As I said earlier, I want to believe the president, but how can I when he makes a statement like this?

Mr. Obama and some Congressional leaders have said that those who oppose his healthcare plan are selfish and morally irresponsible, even racist. They say that those who oppose the plan don’t want to provide their fellow Americans with the same health care they enjoy.

I know this to be untrue. This has long been a basic principle of the social teaching of Catholics and other Christians–and it’s a principle I myself hold dear. For the past 10 years–I remember because it was the result of a specific event in my life – I have said the following prayer: “Lord, I pray that everyone in the world will have food to eat, clothes to wear, a good house, good neighbors, someone to love them and access to health care.”

But by health care, I mean I want everyone to have access to a doctor when they are sick–not access to unlimited abortion, assisted suicide, and rationing based on age and disability–and I have to add that I also don’t want to bankrupt our country in the process. If Democrats mean the same thing, then I ask you to please make this clear so I can support your plan–cheerfully!

Let us not be like Pontius Pilate who famously asked Jesus Christ before crucifying Him, “What is truth?” That is a question we should be able to answer.

It is not impossible for Americans to agree about universal health care. What remains to be seen is whether lawmakers are willing to explain to the American people–both in their legislation and in their public statements— what they really mean.