Wisconsin Bishops v. Bp. Vasa on "Plan B"

Well, it had to happen sometime.

The Wisconsin Bishops issued a "nolo contendere" regarding the Legislative initiatives to require "Plan B" abortifacients. There are a few quibbles (page 2 of the document) but they basically caved on this Planned Parenthood initiative.

They cite the Ethical and Religious Directives of the USCC:

" A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception....
if after appropriate testing...there is no evidence that conception has occurred...., she may be treated with medications that prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization.

"It is not permissible...to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum."

Yah, well...

Bishop Vasa of Oregon has a more critical take:

...Nothing is to be done which impedes the natural progress of a child already conceived. This principle, at least in the ideal, is understood and practiced in Catholic hospitals. There is a huge difficulty with Plan B. If a pregnancy is confirmed by way of a standard pregnancy test then Plan B is neither warranted nor needed since such a readily identified pregnancy would not be the result of a very recent sexual assault. If the standard pregnancy test returns a negative for pregnancy then this only proves that the woman was not pregnant prior to the assault. The critical question, which must be answered with very great care, is whether the assaulted woman has already conceived a child as a result of the assault.The answer to this question may not be able to be given with certainty and I maintain that it must be given with certainty in order to proceed with Plan B. The utilization of Plan B without this certainty runs the unjustifiable risk of destroying new life while ostensibly intending to prevent the assault from engendering that life. It turns an uncaring eye to the new life which may have already begun.

Bp. Vasa goes on to explain further:

Using a bit of verbal engineering allows the proponents to assure us that the product prevents “conception” and does not disrupt “pregnancy.” A closer look reveals that when proponents of Plan B use terms like conception or pregnancy they almost always mean an already implanted, growing baby in the womb of his or her mother. Most proponents of Plan B would maintain that pregnancy begins at implantation whereas it is much more honest to affirm that pregnancy begins at conception. Thus, though the language is the language of protecting a woman from a pregnancy as a result of sexual assault the truth is that the desire to protect a woman from such a pregnancy extends even to destroying the newly conceived child if necessary.

In other words, the pregnancy test is not really capable of determinining whether conception has occurred within 24 (or less) hours of the assault. And in the case where the question cannot be answered with moral certainty, the correct path is NOT to proceed with "Plan B."

Bp. Vasa happens to base his opinion on solid medical testimony AND on an understanding of the moral law (as enshrined in the Hippocratic Oath, before that became irrelevant...) "First thing, DO NO HARM."

It would be useful for Abp. Dolan to take action correcting the Wisconsin Catholic Conference's position--sooner rather than later.

HT: Jester and Terry