HARTFORD, Conn. — Legislation that would have required all hospitals, including Catholic facilities, to prescribe rape victims the so-called morning after pill, was allowed to die Monday.
The Public Health Committee, which took up the bill 15 minutes before its deadline, ran out of time to act on a possible compromise that would have allowed Catholic hospitals to use private nurses to administer the pill. The medication helps prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of intercourse.
Well that is good news for now, but the legislatures idea of a compromise is pretty laughable. We know you are morally against killing an innocent child so we are sure you will have no problem if a "private nurse" does it instead.
9 comments
LOL!!! So if I hire a hit man to shoot you, I’m innocent, right!!! 🙂
Legislation that would require a hospital to prescribe…?
Is that getting laws mixed up in the private decisions of a doctor and a patient?
Legislation that would require a hospital to prescribe…?
I can see where that would go… “Hey, Doc! I need some codeine! It’s my legal right!” Or worse, in states where doctors can prescribe marijuana…
I’ve been saying all along that if this law passes, the only thing the bishops can do is shut down the hospitals. I wonder how the pro-death lobby will respond to that.
Wow, talk about violations of privacy rights and morality. Of course the ACLU will jump in to stop this gross violaiton of privacy….[sounds of crickets]…that’s what I thought.
I’m going to go with the Church on this one, but I was wondering, if there was a way to absolutely avoid ovulation without in any way endangering a fertilized egg, wouldn’t *that* be okay in cases of rape?
After all, it’s not as if you’re talking about a married couple who are open or not open to life. A single woman who is abducted and raped was not supposed to be open to life. In fact, she was “closed” to life in that she was not open to having sexual intercourse in the first place.
I understand the “morning after” pill would have the effect of aborting some fertilized embryos, which is unacceptable. But what about the case of someone who knows she has not yet ovulated and would take the pill in order to prevent ovulation? Wouldn’t that be acceptable?
Jane, I realize that the Church’s teaching against abortion even in rape/incest cases is hard to accept, but the Church does not make an exception because the unborn child that is the result of the crime is even more innocent. Taking an innocent life can not be ever justified as the child has a soul from the moment of conception.
To analogize, you would not expect to be imprisoned because one of your father robbed a bank nor would you be put to death because he committed a murder. So why should you be killed in the womb because he committed a rape?
Jane– the answer to your question is YES. There is actually a protocol, the name of which I forget, which is spreading among Catholic hospitals to pin down if/when ovulation has occurred, and then to administer or not administer the drugs accordingly.
Paul, I would never condone abortion as the result of a rape! 🙁 That’s why I was asking if it was okay to take the pill *if* one could prove (via low temperatures, for example, or hormonal testing) that ovulation had not occurred.
If you check out my website, I carried a baby to term after the doctors had diagnosed that the baby would die shortly after birth due to a birth defect. They advised abortion; I went to term. I would not deny any pre-existing baby the right to live because of the circumstances of its conception. But if that baby did not already exist, I see no reason not to prevent it by preventing the woman from ovulating if you can prove she hasn’t already.
Margaret, thank you for the information.
Comments are closed.