Pro-life

The first rule when your ‘e in a hole is to stop digging. A lesson that Barry Feldman whole is general counsel for St. Francis Hospital the lead spokesman for the Connecticut Catholic Bishops conference should learn.

Asked how the CCC found itself at odds with the Vatican document, Feldman replied, "What we’re talking about now is emergency contraception which is different from the morning after pill which is referred to in that Vatican document. What the Vatican document was expressing an opinion on and an objection to was medication or a pill, the morning after pill, that has the direct intended effect of causing an abortion."

Feldman added, "Emergency contraception is different, its not an abortion pill, its intended to prevent pregnancy and not constitute an abortion. So what we’re talking about now really is just a totally different subject and a totally different medication than what was addressed in the Vatican document. The Vatican has not issued any kind of teaching with respect to emergency contraception."

I had to read the above several times and it still doesn’t make sense.

…LifeSiteNews.com spoke with Dr. John Shea, a medical doctor who has researched and written extensively on bioethical issues. Dr. Shea, a member of the Canadian Bioethics Institute confirmed that Plan B, the drug which the CCC has agreed to allow into Catholic hospitals is indeed a morning after pill, and was specifically addressed in the Vatican document where it spoke of a pill containing "only progestogens".

Richard Doerflinger, Deputy Director for the USCCB Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, although he would not specifically address the CCC situation, did confirm that the Pontifical Academy’s 2000 document did address Plan B.

I found the otherwise reliable Bishop Lori’s blog post on the subject to be rather unsatisfying.

Unfortunately, Connecticut Legislature decided last spring to settle the question of whether both tests are necessary, instead of letting the Church do so in her own way. The Governor signed into law a measure that forbids health care professionals from using the results of an ovulation test in treating a rape victim. We bishops, as well as health care professionals, continue to believe this law is seriously flawed and should be changed. You should also know that we carefully explored with very competent experts the possibility of challenging the law. Unfortunately, such a challenge would most likely not succeed. Failure of the hospitals to comply would put them and their staffs at risk.

I still don’t understand how a "seriously flawed" law that you can ethically comply with really needs to be changed? Why would you want it to be changed unless you believe that only a standard pregnancy test, as the law allows, is not enough. Plus the whole idea of the government limiting what tests a hospital can perform should be causing alarm far outside the circle of the Catholic Church.

I also find the following statement to be rather weaselly.

Indeed, the Church does not teach that it is intrinsically evil to administer Plan B without first giving an ovulation test or that those who do so are committing an abortion.

The Church doesn’t specify every method that can be used to kill an unborn child as intrinsically evil, it calls murdering a human person intrinsically evil. He also downplayed the medical science about an abortafacient aspect by saying only "some believe" (when it is the mainstream assumption) and saying their is uncertainty about this, but somehow this uncertainty can also be categorized as "rare."

I think what I found most disappointing about the Bishop’s letters is that it seemed all about the prudence of challenging and resisting the law and zero emphasis on possibly allowing Catholic hospitals to kill human beings in the name of prudence.

“Reluctant compliance” emerged as the only viable option.

Diogenes saw the use of viable to be highly ironic and I agree.

Its it no wonder that Tertillian never said "The blood of the Bishops was the seed of the church." OK – that is rather snarky and of course there have been Bishop martyrs but you only need to think back to the fact that St. John Fisher was the only Bishop to stand up to the King in the face of government intrusion into the Church.

St. John Fisher pray for us.

Hat tip to Constitutionally Correct for the story.

Via American Papist.

Rep. Daylin Leach (D., Montgomery), the sponsor of a new bill that would require every hospital in Pennsylvania to immediately administer Plan B to all victims of rape (underlining mine):

"Some people believe AIDS is punishment for sin … but we would never allow doctors to withhold treatment from anyone struck with the illness. We are all free to practice our religion, but if we put ourselves in a position to provide emergency medical care, our right to practice religion ends when we start making life-changing, adverse decisions for other people."

He has a point if rephrased. We should not be life-changing or adverse decisions for other people. I would consider killing innocent children in the womb to be quite adverse and especially life-changing or really a life-ending decisions. It is rather strange to say that we are free to practice are religion, but if we want to prevent murder then that is out of bounds.

At the University of Florida the Oct 11th appearance of Dr. Jack Kevorkian has been rescheduled to Jan 15h with panel discussions after it. This blog hopes that people with disabilities will be allowed on the panel.

Since this is the University of Florida and with the delayed date this gives plenty of time for some "Don’t euthanize me bro" shirts to be made up for the appearance.

Jimmy Akin weighs in on the Connecticut Bishop Conference controversy regarding Plan B and Catholic hospitals.

THE BIG RED DISCLAIMER: What I am about to write is not indicative of my own view. I’m trying to explain the apparent reasoning of the Connecticut bishops. I’m not saying that they are correct or incorrect. Rome could rule either way on this, and it may well get involved. What I’m trying to do is explain a position, not defend it.

His post is well worth reading especially regarding contraception in a non-marital context, something that many do not realize that this still requires some magisterial development.

He later addresses the possible abortafacient properties of Plan B.

I’m far from being an expert on Plan B, but any time there is a possibility that something is abortafacient, I want to apply the Deerhunter Principle: If you’re out in the woods hunting, you cannot open fire if the result is reasonably foreseen to involve the possible death of a human.

I used the hunter principle in my original post, but I did this mainly because I have heard Jimmy Akin use it before and it is quite apt in this situation. Though I do wonder if we can get embryos to wear orange?

His post shows why Jimmy’s writings are so valuable since while he states he "finds troubling about the whole situation" he also shows the scope of the issue.

American Papist has the full statement from the Connecticut Bishop’s Conference and what I previously posted about and unfortunately the media coverage portrayed it accurately.

Constitutionally Correct also has some commentary on the Bishop’s decision.

HARTFORD, Conn. – Roman Catholic bishops have agreed to let hospital personnel give emergency contraception to all rape victims, reversing their decision days before a new state law requires it.

The church had fought the state law by arguing it would force Catholic medical personnel to perform chemical abortions because they may be providing emergency contraception to women who are ovulating. The Catholic hospitals wanted to first perform ovulation tests, but lawmakers did not include such tests in the legislation.

The bishops now say that administering the drug, sold as Plan B, cannot be judged as an abortion.

Another story gives more details:

But Catholic Bishops of Connecticut and leaders of the Catholic hospitals said in a joint statement Thursday that “since the teaching authority of the church has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work,” the hospitals will be allowed to provide Plan B to rape victims without first requiring ovulation tests.

“To administer Plan B without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act,” the statement reads.

I haven’t been able to find the whole statement and there is no new information on the Connecticut Catholic Conferences’ site other than older stories on why they have to fight this.

If the reporting is true I find this quite troubling. For one thing there is not serious doubt as to how Plan B works. Here is a graphic from the actual product label.

I also found "the teaching authority of the church" not definitively resolving this matter to be a bit of a red herring. The teaching authority of the Church already teaches that you can not kill an innocent human person under any circumstance. There is not going to be a deeper doctrinal understanding that will say that you can kill an innocent human person under some circumstances. There is not going to be a magisterial statement for all the ways doctors find to kill unborn children. Statements give us the principles on which to act on.

The main debate used by backers of Plan B is that it isn’t an abortion until implantation. Surely a fertilized egg is a conceived human being?

I guess the Connecticut Bishops can also rewrite the hunters code. We don’t need "when in doubt, don’t shoot." Hey even if there is doubt you can go ahead and blast away at what might be a deer or maybe a child. Whatever happened to erring on the side of life?

“To administer Plan B without an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act.”

Now one thing not mentioned in many of the stories is that the current policy is to conduct a pregnancy test first before using Plan B and this will continue. Though these tests are not reliable at the earlier stages of conception. I would think a certain degree of certitude would be required before possibly a conceived human being is starved to death.

“If it becomes clear that Plan B pills would lead to an early chemical abortion in some instances, this matter would have to be reopened,” the statement said.

Well how about reading the label? Another question is if they think there is serious doubt that Plan B causes a chemical abortion then why even administer a pregnancy test? If there is doubt enought to require this test why not using more certain tests?

I also don’t understand why they have backed down on this since their earlier statements? There has been no scientific research that changes any of the ethical problems. None of the basic facts have changed, so why a change in outcome?

In other news on the Catholic front.

Administrators at the university’s Law Center reversed earlier this month a policy prohibiting funding for students at summer internships at organizations that promote abortion rights, after a widely publicized case in the spring which drew protest from hundreds of students.

Under the new policy, announced by Law Center Dean T. Alexander Aleinikoff in a letter published in the Law Center’s student newspaper, the university will no longer consider the mission of each organization when determining grants provided by a student-run organization to students for summer internships.

So bankrolling a student working for Planned Parenthood to enable them to be an unpaid intern is about par for what passes as Catholic education.

Update: American Papist has more.

Sen. John Kerry’s speech at the Catholic University of America has been cancelled due to scheduling conflicts.

From a Lifesite article:

Nakas however, explained that a Kerry lecture at CUA would not be a contradiction to the USCCB policy. "Unfortunately, some people are misinterpreting the bishops’ statement on Catholic politicians. We verified with the bishops themselves that the intent of the statement was to refuse a platform to speakers who would be invited to speak on those specific issues for which they hold positions that are at variance with the fundamental moral teachings of the Catholic Church (emphasis in original email).

Nakas continued, "This means, for example, that we would be violating the letter and the intent of the bishops’ statement were we to invite Sen. Kerry to speak on abortion. However, we would not be violating the letter and the spirit of the bishops’ statement were we to permit the College Democrats to invite Sen. Kerry to speak on the environment or the Iraq war."

The Tower had previously reported that Kerry was invited to specifically address the issues of the environment and the Iraq war.

Now what the bishop’s document Catholics in Political Life said was:

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

*emphasis in the original statement.

While the bishops statement can be certainly interpreted in a vague manner the idea that someone can speak on a subject as long as it isn’t one of the fundamental moral principles they violate is rather compartmented. They wouldn’t invite a member of the KKK even if they were an expert on the environment. Or a speaker that supported genocide that was an expert in another subject. This is just part of the attitude where a politician’s 100 percent voting record for abortion and against other life issues is not perceived as all that bad in the first place.

The Kerry lecture would not have been held as an officially school sponsored event. While the administration had to approve the speaker choice, the cost of the event would have been paid by the College Democrats who were to organize and host the lecture. However, funding for the political group comes, at least in part, from a student activity fee that all CUA students are required to pay each year.

The "it is not an officially sponsored school event" dodge is becoming more and more frequently used. This is the educrats version of "plausible deniability."

Via Matt C. Abbott

In an update of sorts to my coverage of the relatively recent controversy involving the University of Detroit Mercy � which had advertised job opportunities at Planned Parenthood, among other scandalous items � a UDM alumnus who had given nearly $200,000 to the university “will never give them another dime.”

The alumnus, Tom (not his real name), who works for a major German bank in Chicago, reports that about two years ago, he met with Maureen Fay, then-outgoing UDM president, Father Gerard Stockhausen, S.J., then-incoming (and current) president, and F. Thomas Lewand, UDM board of trustees chair, “about this exact issue.”

“I was prepared to make a gift of $3 million to UDM upon my death,” said Tom, via e-mail. “I asked that these [pro-abortion] links and Web sites be removed. I was blown off, so I had UDM removed as a beneficiary from my estate.

Tom said that Father Stockhausen treated him in a very abrupt and cavalier manner, even telling him “I see nothing wrong with these organizations. They do a lot of good.”

A Michigan pro-life activist who arranged a May 2007 meeting with UDM officials, including Father Stockhausen, reports that the job placement to Planned Parenthood has ended.

But Tom isn’t confident about UDM’s apparent “conversion.”

“I do not trust Stockhausen at all,” Tom said. “I would suggest someone pay a visit � unannounced � to determine if he has complied.”

SACRAMENTO � Physician-assisted suicide advocates � unable to pass legislation and short on cash to push a statewide ballot initiative � will announce today the creation of a consultation service to offer information to the terminally ill and even provide volunteers for those who would like someone to be present when committing suicide.

“Volunteers will neither provide nor administer the means for aid in dying,” said the Rev. John Brooke, a United Church of Christ minister from Cotati and one of the organizers of the new End of Life Consultation Service. “Clients will obtain and self-administer these means. We will not break or defy the law.”

But Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, part of an opposition coalition, said it sounded like the formation of “California death squads” to him.

Thomasson, pointing to laws against suicide, called for an investigation by authorities once the consultation service begins.

Representatives of the new End of Life Consultation Service say they will advise the terminally ill on how to better access pain treatment and end-of-life care. Clergy and trained volunteer counselors also will advise the terminally ill against violent suicide, instead helping identify a path to a peaceful death.

A counselor will remain present to comfort a terminally ill person taking their own life, if that person wishes, program representatives said.

The Jericho March to protest the Aurora Planned Parenthood opening is on for Sep at 9 a.m. More information here.