I remember when much opprobrium was heaped on Catholic bloggers who dared to question Sr. Keehan’s pro-life convictions and faithfulness to the magisterium. For example I believe America Magazines attack on Jack from the Catholic Key. As time when on much less was made of this as Sr. Keehan became more and more inline with the Obama administration than the Bishops.
First off I would agree to a point with this part of her latest statement.
However, CHA is very concerned about the inadequacy of the conscience protections with respect to the coverage of contraception. As it stands, the language is not broad enough to protect our Catholic health providers. Catholic hospitals are a significant part of this nation’s health care, especially in the care of the most vulnerable. It is critical that we be allowed to serve our nation without compromising our conscience.
It does not go far enough in pointing out that contraception coverage is more than just a concern for Catholic health providers, but for all Catholics who will have rates raised to pay for contraception for others. The definition of the religious employer is so narrow that it could only apply to a Catholic hospital if the majority of the staff was Catholic and the same goes for the patients. Though they are taking comments on this – not holding my breath that this will change their definition.
We appreciate that the Administration does not intend to include abortifacient drugs as covered contraception. Our comments will address our concerns about the mechanism of action of certain FDA-approved contraceptive drugs.
This is simply not true. While the new guidelines don’t cover drugs such as RU-486 to specifically induce an abortion they are covering abortafacients.
Concerning contraceptive coverage mandated by these guidelines:
All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.
So this would include IUDs. IUDs when they work are always abortafacient since they do nothing to prevent conception, but act to prevent implantation. So there is absolutely no doubt that the guidelines include abortafacients. While there is some medical dispute concerning the abortafacient effects of the standard birth control bill, preventing implantation is one of the mechanism listed on the information sheet that comes with them. The lowered dosage of modern birth control pills makes preventing implantation a higher possibility. The same goes for Plan B and Ella which would also be included.
Besides as a Catholic how can you be happy with any part of the new guidelines. Contraception is gravefully sinful and to say anything less supports the Culture of Death.
[Via Creative Minority Report]
So will Sr. Keehan be the next Ambassador to Malta considering all the water she carries for the Obama Administration?
3 comments
The problem (re: abortifacient contraceptives) that we’re going to have is that by accepted definition (accepted by Planned Parenthood, anyway), a woman is not pregnant until implantation. So…any contraceptive that works by disallowing a conceptus to implant is, de facto, a contraceptive–NOT an abortifacient.
From PP’s site:
“How Long Does It Take to Get Pregnant After Having Sex?
Pregnancy doesn’t start when partners have intercourse — it can take up to 6 days after intercourse for the sperm and egg to join and form a fertilized egg. Then, it takes 6 to 10 days for the fertilized egg to completely implant itself in the lining of the uterus. Pregnancy begins during implantation when the hormone needed to support pregnancy is released. That hormone is called the human chorionic gonadotropin hormone (HCG). Pregnancy tests work by detecting it.”
Sadly, this is the definition the government uses (according to Guttmacher.
You just inspired and reminded me to write MPR on why their analysis of this wrong (they had an expert who said “oh no! It’s not abortive! not at all!). Lots of education to do here.
How about useless idiot?