Legislation to force Catholic hospitals to issue the "morning after" pill (Plan B) to victims of rape will not be opposed by the Wisconsin Catholic Bishops.
The bishops are basing their decisions on an interpretation of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops document: Ethical and Religious Directives (E.R.D.) for Catholic Health Care Services which states at no. 36 with regard to a woman who has been raped: "If after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation the process by which spermatozoa in the ampullary portion of a uterine tube become capable of going through the acrosome reaction and fertilizing an oocyte." However, the document adds: "It is not permissible, however, 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." (see the document: http://www.usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml )
This is also known as the "Peoria Protocol."
That position is controversial.
The only public Vatican statement on the morning after pill condemns its use outright. The Pontifical Academy for Life states that "the absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it." (see the full Vatican statement here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdli... )
The problem lies not so much in theology but in science. What the US Conference document is aiming at is preventing conception after rape, rather than abortion. However, pregnancy occurs not at implantation of the unborn child in the uterus, but at fertilization which can occur within minutes after intercourse. Further, normal pregnancy tests based on a hormone known as hcG is accurate only if a woman is at least one week pregnant by the time of the test, since the body's chemical changes resulting from pregnancy which are picked up by the devices must be at a detectable level. This takes at least five days rather than minutes or hours.
Should a woman have been impregnanted by the rape, a pregnancy test would likely not detect it within the first couple of days after the rape, thus taking the morning after pill in such a scenario would cause an abortion even though the pregnancy test had shown no pregnancy.
Dr. John Shea M.D., who has for some years specialized in researching and reporting on life issues, is the medical consultant to LifeSiteNews.com. He notes that since the administration of abortifacient drugs may place an innocent human life at stake, surety is required that the woman in question is not yet pregnant. That absolute certainty cannot be provided by science, he says. He compares the doubt about whether the woman is already pregnant to the classic example of the hunter's doubt about whether a movement behind a bush is caused by deer or a human being. "You can't shoot unless you're certain it's a deer," he says.
Famed Catholic moral theologian Msgr. William Smith, who teaches at St. Joseph's Seminary in Dunwoodie, New York, concurs. "It's wrong to say, you can use anything that has abortifacient properties. Emergency contraception is double talk ... it's what I call 'verbal engineering'. Catholic hospitals are not free to prescribe or provide anything with abortifacient properties without contradicting their witness."
It's not unusual for science and theology to be in conflict--a few hundred years ago, Aquinas speculated that the "quickening" of the fetus did not occur until the 4th month of pregnancy. Aquinas was not in possession of an MRI imager, either...
Looks like Abp. Dolan has a project on his table.
Update: Wiggy has a followup post here.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Abortifacient. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Abortifacient. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Sunday, June 03, 2007
"Morning-After" (Plan B) Pill: Yes, It's an Abortifacient
Earlier, based on (now-outdated) knowledge, the Catholic Bishops of Wisconsin decided not to oppose SB129. This new finding may well require them to change their position on the Bill.
It's about forcing Wisconsin hospitals to administer "Plan B" (the morning after pill) to victims of rape. Since "Wisconsin hospitals" includes "Wisconsin Catholic hospitals," there is a moral problem here: can the State force a Catholic institution to facilitate an abortion?
Here's the latest study on the drug in question:
The most recent scientific study on Levonorgestrel, the essential component of the “morning-after pill” or “emergency contraceptive,” confirms that the drug does indeed have a third effect on users, which consists in preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the womb of the mother.
The promoters of the drug in Latin America, where most countries have laws against abortion, have argued that the there is no scientific basis for the “third effect,” and that therefore the drug should be legalized. Dr. Horacio Croxatto, professor at the Chilean Institute of Reproductive Medicine, said in 2006 that the morning-after pill “is not abortifacient because it only prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation.”
Nevertheless, the most recent study (2007) by Doctors Mikolajczyk and Stanford of the Department of Medicine in Public Health of the University of Bielefeld (Germany) clearly indicates that the pill’s “real effect” includes mechanisms that prevent implantation.
Published by the magazine Fertility and Sterility, the study used data from multiple clinical studies with advanced mathematical models and concluded that if emergency contraception only inhibited ovulation its true effectiveness would only be in a range of 8-49 percent. If it acted before ovulation and if it inhibited ovulation completely, its true effectiveness would be between 16-90 percent. The rest of the pill’s effectiveness consists in its anti-implantation mechanisms, which cause an abortion.
There are more problems with "Plan B," some of which are mentioned in this post, having to do with a similar proposal in Connecticut. The pill was approved by FDA without the necessary rulemaking; it was found "unsafe" by FDA without medical supervision; and the data submitted to FDA did not establish that it was safe or effective. One would think that Planned Parenthood could be a bit more restrained in pushing for a pill which does not have adequate data supporting its safety.
Or not.
Before this study, it was thought that "Plan B" did not have an abortifacient effect--thus, the Bishops chose not to oppose based on the "Peoria Protocol."
With the new information in hand, the Bishops will re-think their position.
It's about forcing Wisconsin hospitals to administer "Plan B" (the morning after pill) to victims of rape. Since "Wisconsin hospitals" includes "Wisconsin Catholic hospitals," there is a moral problem here: can the State force a Catholic institution to facilitate an abortion?
Here's the latest study on the drug in question:
The most recent scientific study on Levonorgestrel, the essential component of the “morning-after pill” or “emergency contraceptive,” confirms that the drug does indeed have a third effect on users, which consists in preventing the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the womb of the mother.
The promoters of the drug in Latin America, where most countries have laws against abortion, have argued that the there is no scientific basis for the “third effect,” and that therefore the drug should be legalized. Dr. Horacio Croxatto, professor at the Chilean Institute of Reproductive Medicine, said in 2006 that the morning-after pill “is not abortifacient because it only prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation.”
Nevertheless, the most recent study (2007) by Doctors Mikolajczyk and Stanford of the Department of Medicine in Public Health of the University of Bielefeld (Germany) clearly indicates that the pill’s “real effect” includes mechanisms that prevent implantation.
Published by the magazine Fertility and Sterility, the study used data from multiple clinical studies with advanced mathematical models and concluded that if emergency contraception only inhibited ovulation its true effectiveness would only be in a range of 8-49 percent. If it acted before ovulation and if it inhibited ovulation completely, its true effectiveness would be between 16-90 percent. The rest of the pill’s effectiveness consists in its anti-implantation mechanisms, which cause an abortion.
There are more problems with "Plan B," some of which are mentioned in this post, having to do with a similar proposal in Connecticut. The pill was approved by FDA without the necessary rulemaking; it was found "unsafe" by FDA without medical supervision; and the data submitted to FDA did not establish that it was safe or effective. One would think that Planned Parenthood could be a bit more restrained in pushing for a pill which does not have adequate data supporting its safety.
Or not.
Before this study, it was thought that "Plan B" did not have an abortifacient effect--thus, the Bishops chose not to oppose based on the "Peoria Protocol."
With the new information in hand, the Bishops will re-think their position.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Planned Parenthood Wants Status of "Religion"
Seems as though Planned Barrenhood saw the handwriting on the wall. And in this case, that phrase is particularly apropos. Mene, mene, tekel upharsin.....
...proposed regulations by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) would make sure federal money would not go to "support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law."
The new rules would require hospitals, clinics, researchers, medical schools, and even state and local governments who receive funding under federal health care programs to guarantee they will not discriminate against hiring doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals who have moral objections to abortion and abortifacient birth control
("Abortifacient birth control" is also called "Plan B," an item with which Abp. Dolan is quite familiar. Wisconsin law requires ALL hospitals, doctors, and nurses to administer "Plan B" in cases of rape.)
Back to the story. PP, with $300++ million in taxpayer funding at stake, went nuts.
Planned Parenthood has launched a frenzied campaign to quash the regulations, claiming that as a recipient of federal tax dollars - $336.7 million from government grants and contracts - they would be required not to discriminate against pro-life nurses who apply for a job.
"The rule would also require entities that receive family planning funding, like Planned Parenthood, to certify that we will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control," the abortion provider states on its website.
In effect, Planned Parenthood would like to claim a First Amendment "religious" exception to the rule. That is to say, the Worshippers of Moloch (Molochites? Molochians?) would prefer not to hire pro-lifers.
Even worse, to the Molochites:
One nightmare scenario for PP is that "crisis pregnancy centers" run by "anti-choice zealots" will "receive a massive influx of our tax dollars to expand their deceptive operations and to attract hundreds of thousands of women who think they'll be getting medical care but instead will receive a large dose of anti-choice ideology."
By the way, the regulation proposal contains language which points to Wisconsin's recent legislation.
A copy of the memo obtained by Reuters indicates the HSS is worried about state laws mandating that health care providers violate their consciences on abortion or lose their jobs or grant money.
"Despite the fact that several conscience statutes protecting health care entities from discrimination have been in existence for decades, recent events suggest the public and people in the health care industry are largely uninformed of the protections," states the draft
Connecticut was named. They could have added Wisconsin.
...proposed regulations by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) would make sure federal money would not go to "support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law."
The new rules would require hospitals, clinics, researchers, medical schools, and even state and local governments who receive funding under federal health care programs to guarantee they will not discriminate against hiring doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals who have moral objections to abortion and abortifacient birth control
("Abortifacient birth control" is also called "Plan B," an item with which Abp. Dolan is quite familiar. Wisconsin law requires ALL hospitals, doctors, and nurses to administer "Plan B" in cases of rape.)
Back to the story. PP, with $300++ million in taxpayer funding at stake, went nuts.
Planned Parenthood has launched a frenzied campaign to quash the regulations, claiming that as a recipient of federal tax dollars - $336.7 million from government grants and contracts - they would be required not to discriminate against pro-life nurses who apply for a job.
"The rule would also require entities that receive family planning funding, like Planned Parenthood, to certify that we will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control," the abortion provider states on its website.
In effect, Planned Parenthood would like to claim a First Amendment "religious" exception to the rule. That is to say, the Worshippers of Moloch (Molochites? Molochians?) would prefer not to hire pro-lifers.
Even worse, to the Molochites:
One nightmare scenario for PP is that "crisis pregnancy centers" run by "anti-choice zealots" will "receive a massive influx of our tax dollars to expand their deceptive operations and to attract hundreds of thousands of women who think they'll be getting medical care but instead will receive a large dose of anti-choice ideology."
By the way, the regulation proposal contains language which points to Wisconsin's recent legislation.
A copy of the memo obtained by Reuters indicates the HSS is worried about state laws mandating that health care providers violate their consciences on abortion or lose their jobs or grant money.
"Despite the fact that several conscience statutes protecting health care entities from discrimination have been in existence for decades, recent events suggest the public and people in the health care industry are largely uninformed of the protections," states the draft
Connecticut was named. They could have added Wisconsin.
Sunday, February 03, 2013
Unicorns and Pink Bunnies!! The New ObozoCare
So Malor went to the trouble of actually reading the ObozoCare reg-workaround to the 'religion problem.'
It's going to be MAGIC!!
...If neither the insured person nor the employer was going to pay for this healthcare, who was? Today's notice of rulemaking solves the problem by declaring that no one does.
The Obama Administration accomplished this feat of financial witchery by making two magical claims. First, it declares that for insured group health plans, the cost of contraception and abortifacient coverage with be "cost neutral, and may result in cost savings" once all other benefits are considered. (Pardon me for a minute while I flash back to Obama making the same false claim about Obamacare's own impact on the federal budget.)
That is, HHS simply mandated that this change 'WILL be cost-neutral.' Ex nihilo, "cost-neutral."
The rule cites a study that finds the cost of contraception is cheaper than the cost of unplanned pregnancy, which is idiotically beside the point, since no one, not even the Obama Administration, is suggesting that people who do not get free contraception will necessarily fail to use any contraception at all. This pathetic, financially dubious dodge is the fig leaf that the Obama Administration has hung on the religious employer exception. It gets worse though.
Second, for self-insured health groups, like some corporations, the proposed rule says the cost of contraception and abortifacients will be offset because the ultimate issuer of the objectionable coverage (the rule contemplates a third party) will get to deduct the cost from the federally-mandated exchange fees that all such insurers will have to pay to continue operating under Obamacare. Essentially, Obama is saying to these insurers: "You must pay me a fee to stay in business, but you can deduct the cost of contraception from the fee, so that makes the contraception coverage free."
Obozo didn't 'contemplate' the taxpayer, who WILL pay for the deduction.
But at least that's consistent.
It's going to be MAGIC!!
...If neither the insured person nor the employer was going to pay for this healthcare, who was? Today's notice of rulemaking solves the problem by declaring that no one does.
The Obama Administration accomplished this feat of financial witchery by making two magical claims. First, it declares that for insured group health plans, the cost of contraception and abortifacient coverage with be "cost neutral, and may result in cost savings" once all other benefits are considered. (Pardon me for a minute while I flash back to Obama making the same false claim about Obamacare's own impact on the federal budget.)
That is, HHS simply mandated that this change 'WILL be cost-neutral.' Ex nihilo, "cost-neutral."
The rule cites a study that finds the cost of contraception is cheaper than the cost of unplanned pregnancy, which is idiotically beside the point, since no one, not even the Obama Administration, is suggesting that people who do not get free contraception will necessarily fail to use any contraception at all. This pathetic, financially dubious dodge is the fig leaf that the Obama Administration has hung on the religious employer exception. It gets worse though.
Second, for self-insured health groups, like some corporations, the proposed rule says the cost of contraception and abortifacients will be offset because the ultimate issuer of the objectionable coverage (the rule contemplates a third party) will get to deduct the cost from the federally-mandated exchange fees that all such insurers will have to pay to continue operating under Obamacare. Essentially, Obama is saying to these insurers: "You must pay me a fee to stay in business, but you can deduct the cost of contraception from the fee, so that makes the contraception coverage free."
Obozo didn't 'contemplate' the taxpayer, who WILL pay for the deduction.
But at least that's consistent.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Suing Over "Plan B"
This bears watching.
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys together with a Mineola attorney filed a motion to intervene Thursday to challenge a federal court order requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow the abortifacient Plan B drug to be sold over the counter to minors
...The motion to intervene in Tummino v. Hamburg was filed Thursday with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The motion was filed on behalf of Concerned Women for America, the Christian Medical and Dental Association, and Christian Pharmacists Fellowship International, who contend that the order disregards parental rights and the safety of minors.
Although the Statist regime in DC is perfectly happy with abrogation of parental rights, the laws and customs of this country are not yet in accord with their view.
We'll see how the courts treat this.
Alliance Defense Fund attorneys together with a Mineola attorney filed a motion to intervene Thursday to challenge a federal court order requiring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow the abortifacient Plan B drug to be sold over the counter to minors
...The motion to intervene in Tummino v. Hamburg was filed Thursday with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The motion was filed on behalf of Concerned Women for America, the Christian Medical and Dental Association, and Christian Pharmacists Fellowship International, who contend that the order disregards parental rights and the safety of minors.
Although the Statist regime in DC is perfectly happy with abrogation of parental rights, the laws and customs of this country are not yet in accord with their view.
We'll see how the courts treat this.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Santorum Calls Out the Bishops
Rick Santorum is a two-fisted kinda guy--which is why GWB's machine preferred Specter.
(That worked out real well, eh?)
Oh, well. Santorum reminds us all why QueenNancy and her Bloody Court Jesters think they can ram through the Abortion-Enablement act:
...Santorum added that it shouldn’t be a surprise that so many Catholic politicians ignore what the Church is saying. He said that for too long dissent from the teaching of the Church was ignored by bishops. “You have examples from the Kennedy’s on down. The Kennedys and the Cuomos. It was made clear that you can dissent from the Church and still be a Catholic in good standing” he said. “For a long time many bishops in country didn’t say too much about it.”
Like the silence over Dave Obey, which was FINALLY broken by the Bishop of LaCrosse only about 5-6 years ago? Or the silence of Abp. Dolan regarding the "Plan B" abortifacient law passed in Wisconsin only 2 years ago? Or Rembert Weakland's kissy-wussy approach to any LeftOWacko pol?
Be still, my heart.
Santorum's not done yet.
...“I am appalled at the Catholic bishops,” said Santorum. “I commend them for drawing a line in the sand on abortion. But what they’ve suggested would do more damage than the abortion coverage.”
The USCCB has made strong statements against the healthcare bills because of the inclusion of abortion funding but have stated often that they would be in favor of the bill if that were excluded.
Santorum said socialized medicine would lead to "defacto euthanasia."
“This would be a foundational change in America's history that puts the government in control of people’s lives,” he warned.
The USCCB is as internally dysfunctional as is the (D) party. There are Lefties and there are HARD Lefties in that byzantine bureaucracy. So, while a couple of Actually Catholic Bishops mention "subsidiarity"--which automatically removes the Feds from healthcare--and also mention that taking the US into bankruptcy will not assure long-term health of anyone--and that the ruination of Medicare/Medicaid AND private insurance companies is the planned and certain result of ObamaCare--
........others in USCCB twiddle their thumbs, fret, do their Enneagrams, walk their labrynths, and are as useful as church mice.
Good for droppings, not much else.
HT: CMR
(That worked out real well, eh?)
Oh, well. Santorum reminds us all why QueenNancy and her Bloody Court Jesters think they can ram through the Abortion-Enablement act:
...Santorum added that it shouldn’t be a surprise that so many Catholic politicians ignore what the Church is saying. He said that for too long dissent from the teaching of the Church was ignored by bishops. “You have examples from the Kennedy’s on down. The Kennedys and the Cuomos. It was made clear that you can dissent from the Church and still be a Catholic in good standing” he said. “For a long time many bishops in country didn’t say too much about it.”
Like the silence over Dave Obey, which was FINALLY broken by the Bishop of LaCrosse only about 5-6 years ago? Or the silence of Abp. Dolan regarding the "Plan B" abortifacient law passed in Wisconsin only 2 years ago? Or Rembert Weakland's kissy-wussy approach to any LeftOWacko pol?
Be still, my heart.
Santorum's not done yet.
...“I am appalled at the Catholic bishops,” said Santorum. “I commend them for drawing a line in the sand on abortion. But what they’ve suggested would do more damage than the abortion coverage.”
The USCCB has made strong statements against the healthcare bills because of the inclusion of abortion funding but have stated often that they would be in favor of the bill if that were excluded.
Santorum said socialized medicine would lead to "defacto euthanasia."
“This would be a foundational change in America's history that puts the government in control of people’s lives,” he warned.
The USCCB is as internally dysfunctional as is the (D) party. There are Lefties and there are HARD Lefties in that byzantine bureaucracy. So, while a couple of Actually Catholic Bishops mention "subsidiarity"--which automatically removes the Feds from healthcare--and also mention that taking the US into bankruptcy will not assure long-term health of anyone--and that the ruination of Medicare/Medicaid AND private insurance companies is the planned and certain result of ObamaCare--
........others in USCCB twiddle their thumbs, fret, do their Enneagrams, walk their labrynths, and are as useful as church mice.
Good for droppings, not much else.
HT: CMR
Monday, March 17, 2008
Dem Legislator Shows Wisconsin Catholic Conference the Right Path
This is almost from Ripley's "Believe It or Not" ...
Senate Democrats proposed a bill that would force all licensed Wisconsin pharmacists, regardless of their medical and moral judgment, to dispense the morning-after pill and other FDA-approved abortifacient contraceptive drugs. The legislation also redefines the statutory definition of abortion to exclude all FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices.
A hearing was held in the Senate Health Committee this week, and Senate Democrats didn’t count on amendments from one of their own members, Senator Kathleen Vinehout (D-Alma), amendments that dramatically altered the bill.
In complete disbelief and horror, Democrat Senators John Erpenbach and Lena Taylor tore into Vinehout at the hearing, badgering her over and over. To her credit, Vinehout stood her ground and principles. Vinehout voted with the three Republicans on the committee.
Naturally, Planned Parenthood's Liars went into full spittle-flecked attack mode.
Ms. Vinehout has obviously read and digested the latest medical information about "Plan B," the 'contraceptive' in question. All she did was 1) insert a "conscience clause" in the bill, and 2) make certain that abortifacients like "Plan B" are defined correctly in Wisconsin law.
These actions demonstrate far more courage than that shown by Abp. Timothy Dolan, who literally abandoned MD's, nurses, and hospitals to the tender mercies of Planned Barrenhood's "rights" lawyers in a companion-piece proposal, AB377.
Kudos to Ms. Vinehout!!
HT: Kevin Fischer
Senate Democrats proposed a bill that would force all licensed Wisconsin pharmacists, regardless of their medical and moral judgment, to dispense the morning-after pill and other FDA-approved abortifacient contraceptive drugs. The legislation also redefines the statutory definition of abortion to exclude all FDA-approved contraceptive drugs and devices.
A hearing was held in the Senate Health Committee this week, and Senate Democrats didn’t count on amendments from one of their own members, Senator Kathleen Vinehout (D-Alma), amendments that dramatically altered the bill.
In complete disbelief and horror, Democrat Senators John Erpenbach and Lena Taylor tore into Vinehout at the hearing, badgering her over and over. To her credit, Vinehout stood her ground and principles. Vinehout voted with the three Republicans on the committee.
Naturally, Planned Parenthood's Liars went into full spittle-flecked attack mode.
Ms. Vinehout has obviously read and digested the latest medical information about "Plan B," the 'contraceptive' in question. All she did was 1) insert a "conscience clause" in the bill, and 2) make certain that abortifacients like "Plan B" are defined correctly in Wisconsin law.
These actions demonstrate far more courage than that shown by Abp. Timothy Dolan, who literally abandoned MD's, nurses, and hospitals to the tender mercies of Planned Barrenhood's "rights" lawyers in a companion-piece proposal, AB377.
Kudos to Ms. Vinehout!!
HT: Kevin Fischer
Thursday, July 04, 2019
"Yoo-Hoo" +Dolan Movin' On Up!
Several years ago, while then-Abp. Dolan was studiously ignoring a legislative remedy to abortifacient 'morning after' pills here in Wisconsin, we posted a series of entries using the title "Yoo Hoo" Abp Dolan!!
+Dolan has moved on, failing upward to Manhattan. And upward it truly is!!
In this video, at about 7:30 or so, Mike Voris has a couple of pictures of +Dolan's newly-acquired $4 MILLION manse upstate.
George and Louise would be impresssed, if not jealous.
+Dolan has moved on, failing upward to Manhattan. And upward it truly is!!
In this video, at about 7:30 or so, Mike Voris has a couple of pictures of +Dolan's newly-acquired $4 MILLION manse upstate.
George and Louise would be impresssed, if not jealous.
Sunday, June 03, 2012
The Obozo Recovery
The ABO vote will be significant.
...The list of disappointing reports is long: a weak employment report, a downward revision to Q1 GDP growth, a disappointing ISM manufacturing index, weaker than expected auto sales, an increase in weekly unemployment claims, house prices at new post-bubble lows, pending home sales were down, and the Chicago PMI was weaker than expected.
Not to mention the lawsuit against the blatantly un-Constitutional Obozo abortifacient mandate, the impending demolition of Milk-Carton Tommy and his Union Gang, and not-so-good 'consumer confidence' numbers from the Conference Board.....
It's possible that Obozo can save himself.....by starting a war.
Will it be against Iran? Or the Catholics??
...The list of disappointing reports is long: a weak employment report, a downward revision to Q1 GDP growth, a disappointing ISM manufacturing index, weaker than expected auto sales, an increase in weekly unemployment claims, house prices at new post-bubble lows, pending home sales were down, and the Chicago PMI was weaker than expected.
Not to mention the lawsuit against the blatantly un-Constitutional Obozo abortifacient mandate, the impending demolition of Milk-Carton Tommy and his Union Gang, and not-so-good 'consumer confidence' numbers from the Conference Board.....
It's possible that Obozo can save himself.....by starting a war.
Will it be against Iran? Or the Catholics??
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
"Morning After" Pill Condemned by Vatican--Again
The Catholic Church's position on the "morning after" pill has never changed, despite some flim-flam statements by the "Catholic" Health Association.
Bishop Elio Sgreccia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, spoke with LifeSiteNews.com Tuesday on the subject of the use of the morning after pill in cases of rape. Catholic hospitals in several dioceses in North America are currently administering the pill (Plan B) to patients who claim to be victims of rape.
According to Bishop Sgreccia, however, the morning after pill may not be administered by Catholic physicians. The only Vatican opinion on the subject, absolutely prohibiting the use of the pill, was released by the Pontifical Academy for Life in 2000. Since then, however, the Catholic Health Association, advisor to many bishops conferences, has suggested that there is no moral impediment to using the pill in cases of rape. Several bishops conferences have followed the advice and permitted administration of the drugs in Catholic hospitals in cases where rape is asserted.
The Catholic Health Association was, umnnnnnhhhh.....overstepping its bounds.
...Bishop Sgreccia affirmed that the position of the Church on the matter has not changed since the 2000 publication of the Pontifical Academy's document. "But the position of the church is the same," he told LifeSiteNews.com. "The morning after pill is dangerous; is an abortifacient when there is a conception and so illicit to prescribe by doctors."
"Thus," added the Bishop, "there is the same position from the beginning of the presentation of this pill. It is not medicine, not a composition for health, so physicians are not obliged to prescribe it. It is forbidden for Catholic doctors to prescribe it and also to be requested by Catholics."
LifeSiteNews.com asked Bishop Sgreccia if there was an exception in cases of rape. The President of the Pontifical Academy for Life replied, "No. It is not able to prevent the rape. But it is able to eliminate the embryo. It is thus the second negative intervention on the woman (the first being the rape itself)."
The key to the decision lies here:
..."if we're dealing with human life and there is some reasonable doubt placed in the equation we should not use (the pill). "If there's reasonable doubt whether or not there is a child then it should not be used."
And just for the Wisconsin Bishops, an example which should make sense:
Baker, quoting a classic example of St. Thomas Aquinas on the matter, explained: "It's the same as that classic case. If you're out hunting and you see something moving in the bush and you don't know if it's the deer or your fellow hunter, then you don't shoot."
After some delay, Abp. Timothy Dolan and Bp. Callahan of Milwaukee sent a letter to the Wisconsin Legislature concerning AB377--a bill which would force ALL hospitals and physicians in the State of Wisconsin to administer the "morning after" pill on demand to victims of rape. He joined Bp. Listecki of LaCrosse and Bp. Morlino of Madison, both of whom had previously warned about the proposal. (Still MIA: Abp Weakland and Bp. Sklba, among others.)
Dolan's letter did not specifically call for a "conscience clause" in the Bill--perhaps because the State Constitution provides for that. However, the Archbishop did mention the Church's position:
Emergency contraception can, at times, amount to abortion, and both reason and our faith tell us that this is never acceptable. About this we must be very clear.
...and he promised support to those physicians who refuse to obey the law:
...with the promise that we will stand strongly beside them in the future should the effects of emergency contraception legislation ever threaten the freedom of conscience which belongs to every human person as foundational to his or her religious liberty
However, a Vatican document clearly states that "neutrality" on this bill is inappropriate:
Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws
This blogger simply cannot reconcile the Vatican's advice with the "neutrality" expressed by the Wisconsin Catholic Conference in its original (and obviously flawed) letter to the Legislature.
Bishop Elio Sgreccia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, spoke with LifeSiteNews.com Tuesday on the subject of the use of the morning after pill in cases of rape. Catholic hospitals in several dioceses in North America are currently administering the pill (Plan B) to patients who claim to be victims of rape.
According to Bishop Sgreccia, however, the morning after pill may not be administered by Catholic physicians. The only Vatican opinion on the subject, absolutely prohibiting the use of the pill, was released by the Pontifical Academy for Life in 2000. Since then, however, the Catholic Health Association, advisor to many bishops conferences, has suggested that there is no moral impediment to using the pill in cases of rape. Several bishops conferences have followed the advice and permitted administration of the drugs in Catholic hospitals in cases where rape is asserted.
The Catholic Health Association was, umnnnnnhhhh.....overstepping its bounds.
...Bishop Sgreccia affirmed that the position of the Church on the matter has not changed since the 2000 publication of the Pontifical Academy's document. "But the position of the church is the same," he told LifeSiteNews.com. "The morning after pill is dangerous; is an abortifacient when there is a conception and so illicit to prescribe by doctors."
"Thus," added the Bishop, "there is the same position from the beginning of the presentation of this pill. It is not medicine, not a composition for health, so physicians are not obliged to prescribe it. It is forbidden for Catholic doctors to prescribe it and also to be requested by Catholics."
LifeSiteNews.com asked Bishop Sgreccia if there was an exception in cases of rape. The President of the Pontifical Academy for Life replied, "No. It is not able to prevent the rape. But it is able to eliminate the embryo. It is thus the second negative intervention on the woman (the first being the rape itself)."
The key to the decision lies here:
..."if we're dealing with human life and there is some reasonable doubt placed in the equation we should not use (the pill). "If there's reasonable doubt whether or not there is a child then it should not be used."
And just for the Wisconsin Bishops, an example which should make sense:
Baker, quoting a classic example of St. Thomas Aquinas on the matter, explained: "It's the same as that classic case. If you're out hunting and you see something moving in the bush and you don't know if it's the deer or your fellow hunter, then you don't shoot."
After some delay, Abp. Timothy Dolan and Bp. Callahan of Milwaukee sent a letter to the Wisconsin Legislature concerning AB377--a bill which would force ALL hospitals and physicians in the State of Wisconsin to administer the "morning after" pill on demand to victims of rape. He joined Bp. Listecki of LaCrosse and Bp. Morlino of Madison, both of whom had previously warned about the proposal. (Still MIA: Abp Weakland and Bp. Sklba, among others.)
Dolan's letter did not specifically call for a "conscience clause" in the Bill--perhaps because the State Constitution provides for that. However, the Archbishop did mention the Church's position:
Emergency contraception can, at times, amount to abortion, and both reason and our faith tell us that this is never acceptable. About this we must be very clear.
...and he promised support to those physicians who refuse to obey the law:
...with the promise that we will stand strongly beside them in the future should the effects of emergency contraception legislation ever threaten the freedom of conscience which belongs to every human person as foundational to his or her religious liberty
However, a Vatican document clearly states that "neutrality" on this bill is inappropriate:
Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws
This blogger simply cannot reconcile the Vatican's advice with the "neutrality" expressed by the Wisconsin Catholic Conference in its original (and obviously flawed) letter to the Legislature.
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
USCC Pins the Tail on the Wrong Donkey
The Obozo Administration now tells the Catholic Church to stuff its moral teachings by requiring birth-control coverage in all health plans--including "Ella", an abortifacient.
Quoth Sr. Mary Ann Walsh:
“Health and Human Services must think Catholics and other religious groups are fools,”...
Well, actually, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, the USCC was all in FAVOR of ObozoCare, despite the clear warnings that the program would lead to abortion funding (it has) and other odious Gummint mandates, such as the birth-control mandate.
I won't be delicate, Sister. The USCC was "the fool" in this little drama.
Thanks!
Quoth Sr. Mary Ann Walsh:
“Health and Human Services must think Catholics and other religious groups are fools,”...
Well, actually, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, the USCC was all in FAVOR of ObozoCare, despite the clear warnings that the program would lead to abortion funding (it has) and other odious Gummint mandates, such as the birth-control mandate.
I won't be delicate, Sister. The USCC was "the fool" in this little drama.
Thanks!
Monday, May 09, 2022
New Abortifacient!!
You don't need Planned Parenthood. You don't need coat hangers. All you need is.......
Out of 27 women that were accidentally pregnant during the vacc program. Outcome: 23 spontaneous abortions. 2 premature with neonatal death. 1 spontaneous abortion with neonatal death. 1 living baby
Pfizer doc 5.3.6 page 12
“Safe and effective”
Pfizer document quoted by Dr. Loupis, re-quoted at Vox
Papa Joe has you covered.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Corragio, Your Grace!!
Milwaukee Abp J. Listecki puts out the word.
Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki voiced objections to a federal policy that requires most employers to offer insurance that provides free contraceptives.
UNEXPECTEDLY, the Milwaukee JS forgot to mention that the policy also requires free sterilization coverage, and that some of that "birth control" is actually abortifacient.
Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki voiced objections to a federal policy that requires most employers to offer insurance that provides free contraceptives.
WITI-TV (Channel 6) in Milwaukee reports that after celebrating Mass at St. Matthew Parish in Oak Creek on Saturday, Listecki said:
"Catholic agencies are going to be defined how the government wants to define it and not how the church wants to define it. That's totally intolerable. That is not the sense of religious freedom as we know it."
President Barack Obama's federal health care reform law requires most employers, including facilities such as Catholic hospitals but not churches and synagogues, to offer their employees insurance that provides free birth control.UNEXPECTEDLY, the Milwaukee JS forgot to mention that the policy also requires free sterilization coverage, and that some of that "birth control" is actually abortifacient.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Gundrum Holds Up "PlanB" Pill Scheme, Musser Would Steamroll "Choice"
Kudos to Mark Gundrum, who sees the danger in the bill forcing Wisconsin hospitals (and doctors) to provide an abortifacient pill in cases of rape:
A top Republican lawmaker expressed concern about a bill that would require hospitals to stock an emergency contraception pill and make it available to rape victims, and he said he has no plans to hold a hearing on the legislation.
A committee hearing is typically the first step as bills advance through the legislative process. Bills that don't get hearings usually die.
Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, chairman of the Assembly Judiciary and Ethics Committee, said forcing some hospitals to dispense the pill would violate the rights of individual doctors to freely exercise their religious beliefs. Some Catholic doctors are concerned that the pill causes abortion, he said.
"Governments can't be forcing people to do things that are inconsistent with their constitutional rights," said Gundrum, whose committee holds AB 377.
AB377 is the Assembly version of SB129, about which we've posted a few items.
But there are silly (R) folks on the loose:
Rep. Terry Musser, R-Black River Falls and lead sponsor of the bill, said he doesn't expect an immediate hearing because lawmakers are working on the 2007-09 budget. But he said it would be "political suicide" for the Republicans not to pass the bill.
Since AB377/SB129 is being pushed by the World's Leading Advocate of "Choice"--Planned Parenthood--why doesn't Rep. Musser allow the HOSPITALS AND DOCTORS a choice?
In other words, Terry, those hospitals which CHOOSE to stock and dispense the pill should do so. Those that do NOT choose to do so should not.
Maybe that makes too much sense for Terry and the BabyKiller Lobby.
A top Republican lawmaker expressed concern about a bill that would require hospitals to stock an emergency contraception pill and make it available to rape victims, and he said he has no plans to hold a hearing on the legislation.
A committee hearing is typically the first step as bills advance through the legislative process. Bills that don't get hearings usually die.
Rep. Mark Gundrum, R-New Berlin, chairman of the Assembly Judiciary and Ethics Committee, said forcing some hospitals to dispense the pill would violate the rights of individual doctors to freely exercise their religious beliefs. Some Catholic doctors are concerned that the pill causes abortion, he said.
"Governments can't be forcing people to do things that are inconsistent with their constitutional rights," said Gundrum, whose committee holds AB 377.
AB377 is the Assembly version of SB129, about which we've posted a few items.
But there are silly (R) folks on the loose:
Rep. Terry Musser, R-Black River Falls and lead sponsor of the bill, said he doesn't expect an immediate hearing because lawmakers are working on the 2007-09 budget. But he said it would be "political suicide" for the Republicans not to pass the bill.
Since AB377/SB129 is being pushed by the World's Leading Advocate of "Choice"--Planned Parenthood--why doesn't Rep. Musser allow the HOSPITALS AND DOCTORS a choice?
In other words, Terry, those hospitals which CHOOSE to stock and dispense the pill should do so. Those that do NOT choose to do so should not.
Maybe that makes too much sense for Terry and the BabyKiller Lobby.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
After Tabor
Oh, yes, there's more to follow.
There may be a straw in the wind in yesterday’s ruling, with respect to the Obama administration’s determination to compel the coverage of contraceptive and abortifacient drugs in health insurance policies, even ones for religious institutions. The only “religious exception” offered so far by the Department of Health and Human Services to its contraceptive coverage mandate is an exemption so narrow, for religious organizations that employ and serve only their own co-religionists, that even the ministry of Jesus would not qualify. It is as though the Obama administration is staffed by people who have never encountered the ministry to the world that is so common among religious folk—especially but not uniquely among Christians....
Makes that 9-0 even more interesting.
HT: FirstThings
There may be a straw in the wind in yesterday’s ruling, with respect to the Obama administration’s determination to compel the coverage of contraceptive and abortifacient drugs in health insurance policies, even ones for religious institutions. The only “religious exception” offered so far by the Department of Health and Human Services to its contraceptive coverage mandate is an exemption so narrow, for religious organizations that employ and serve only their own co-religionists, that even the ministry of Jesus would not qualify. It is as though the Obama administration is staffed by people who have never encountered the ministry to the world that is so common among religious folk—especially but not uniquely among Christians....
Makes that 9-0 even more interesting.
HT: FirstThings
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Bp Morlino: 'We Were Double-Crossed'
P-Mac highlighted a letter from Bp. Morlino, the Catholic Bishop of Madison, which objects to AB377 (as currently proposed.)
We expected that the Wisconsin Catholic Conference (a lobbying/policy creature of the Wisconsin Catholic Bishops) would be unhappy with AB377's provisions which seem to create an opportunity for abortion, despite the ostensible purpose of the bill--which is to help rape victims avoid conception through administering "Plan B" to rape victims.
However, the WCC remained "neutral" on the bill. Based on the science, some Catholic doctors and ethicists objected to the bill in toto; and I thought that the WCC should have done the same thing. WCC did NOT object--and as it turns out, they were also double-crossed by the Legislature.
Now Bishop Morlino calls a spade a spade.
The hoped-for effect of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference’s earlier stance of neutrality on this bill was to protect women who are the victims of rape, while also protecting the possible pre-born human being, by affirming the necessary conscience exemption for institutions and individuals with regard to the appropriate testing, so as to avoid abortifacient emergency
contraception. It is my judgment as Bishop of Madison that the earlier position of neutrality did not have its hoped for effect, and so it is now moot, and this neutrality position has now expired. Our conference’s neutrality stance has also unintentionally provoked scandal among Catholics who have been persuaded by statements in the media that we are becoming less fervent in our defense of the dignity of pre-born human life
...
It is clear that the Assembly, in rejecting explicit conscience exemption language in this AB 377, is opening the door to the coercion of consciences by the state. As the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, we had been advised that there would be statutory protection of conscience exemption from another statute. If this were assured, there would be no reason why the Assembly would have rejected conscience exemption protection for the reasons they gave. Therefore, I am firmly convinced that our conscience exemption protection is threatened by the approach in the legislation presently being considered. 3) It is clear that Planned Parenthood,
NARAL, and their colleagues are more interested in promoting a state-supported, contraceptive ideology than they are in simply, reasonably, protecting women.
In other words, the WCC was double-crossed by the Legislature. As a professional cynic, my only response is "Doh!"
Now here is a most curious comment from the Bishop's letter:
I might add that Bishop Jerome Listecki of LaCrosse finds himself completely in accord with the sentiments that I have expressed
Which leaves the question: where was the Ordinary of Milwaukee? Marquette?
The Bill has serious constitutional issues as written; it is blatantly pro-abortion; and those who re-wrote it to eliminate the "conscience" clause are scumbags, at best.
We expected that the Wisconsin Catholic Conference (a lobbying/policy creature of the Wisconsin Catholic Bishops) would be unhappy with AB377's provisions which seem to create an opportunity for abortion, despite the ostensible purpose of the bill--which is to help rape victims avoid conception through administering "Plan B" to rape victims.
However, the WCC remained "neutral" on the bill. Based on the science, some Catholic doctors and ethicists objected to the bill in toto; and I thought that the WCC should have done the same thing. WCC did NOT object--and as it turns out, they were also double-crossed by the Legislature.
Now Bishop Morlino calls a spade a spade.
The hoped-for effect of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference’s earlier stance of neutrality on this bill was to protect women who are the victims of rape, while also protecting the possible pre-born human being, by affirming the necessary conscience exemption for institutions and individuals with regard to the appropriate testing, so as to avoid abortifacient emergency
contraception. It is my judgment as Bishop of Madison that the earlier position of neutrality did not have its hoped for effect, and so it is now moot, and this neutrality position has now expired. Our conference’s neutrality stance has also unintentionally provoked scandal among Catholics who have been persuaded by statements in the media that we are becoming less fervent in our defense of the dignity of pre-born human life
...
It is clear that the Assembly, in rejecting explicit conscience exemption language in this AB 377, is opening the door to the coercion of consciences by the state. As the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, we had been advised that there would be statutory protection of conscience exemption from another statute. If this were assured, there would be no reason why the Assembly would have rejected conscience exemption protection for the reasons they gave. Therefore, I am firmly convinced that our conscience exemption protection is threatened by the approach in the legislation presently being considered. 3) It is clear that Planned Parenthood,
NARAL, and their colleagues are more interested in promoting a state-supported, contraceptive ideology than they are in simply, reasonably, protecting women.
In other words, the WCC was double-crossed by the Legislature. As a professional cynic, my only response is "Doh!"
Now here is a most curious comment from the Bishop's letter:
I might add that Bishop Jerome Listecki of LaCrosse finds himself completely in accord with the sentiments that I have expressed
Which leaves the question: where was the Ordinary of Milwaukee? Marquette?
The Bill has serious constitutional issues as written; it is blatantly pro-abortion; and those who re-wrote it to eliminate the "conscience" clause are scumbags, at best.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Another View on the Obozo Abortifacient Mandate
Here's a viewpoint which does not concentrate on the Constitutional issue.
...The argument seems to be that it's important for women, so therefore it should be free to women. There are lots of things that are at least as important, though, that we certainly don't expect to be free: food, for example, or sufficient clothing for the winter. The argument seems to be that birth control ought to be free (and indeed it is, in the form of abstinence, a form of birth control that Catholics consider it a virtue to materially assist: but I digress). It ought to be free, and any employer ought to be sure that any of their employees receives it as free.
This is really an astonishing demand. I could understand demanding it at cost: we could structure an argument whereby insurance companies are understood to receive a reasonable profit, and as part of the price of approving the practice of the business in the state, we mandate that they arrange to provide certain critical medications to their consumers at cost. We might ask, even then, why birth control or abortifacients would be the medicine we chose to occupy this position of special importance -- surely life-saving drugs would be a more worthy choice? Still, at least at cost could conceivably be a reasonable demand.
Free, though? Nothing is free. Everyone knows this....
But "Free Stuff" is what Democrats do, you know.
HT: Grim
...The argument seems to be that it's important for women, so therefore it should be free to women. There are lots of things that are at least as important, though, that we certainly don't expect to be free: food, for example, or sufficient clothing for the winter. The argument seems to be that birth control ought to be free (and indeed it is, in the form of abstinence, a form of birth control that Catholics consider it a virtue to materially assist: but I digress). It ought to be free, and any employer ought to be sure that any of their employees receives it as free.
This is really an astonishing demand. I could understand demanding it at cost: we could structure an argument whereby insurance companies are understood to receive a reasonable profit, and as part of the price of approving the practice of the business in the state, we mandate that they arrange to provide certain critical medications to their consumers at cost. We might ask, even then, why birth control or abortifacients would be the medicine we chose to occupy this position of special importance -- surely life-saving drugs would be a more worthy choice? Still, at least at cost could conceivably be a reasonable demand.
Free, though? Nothing is free. Everyone knows this....
But "Free Stuff" is what Democrats do, you know.
HT: Grim
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Go Ahead. Make My Day.
I don't think that Sibelius or the Twit-in-Chief has the balls to try it.
Monday, February 22, 2016
But Even If the "Nuns in the Congo" Story is True....
There is serious dispute over the "nuns in the Congo" story which was referenced by Pp Francis. As it is told, nuns working in the Congo area were allowed to use birth control pills (NOT abortifacient pills, by the way) to prevent conception following a rape.
Prof. Janet Smith is, arguably, this country's foremost moral theologian on issues having to do with sexuality. Here's her analysis of the "Congo nuns" situation. (Smith takes for granted the truth of the story, by the way).
Thus, for a woman to do something to prevent a rapist’s sperm from
uniting with her ovum is a part of justifiable self-defense. Her act has
nothing to do with violating God’s plan for sexuality. She is not choosing to
use contraception to prevent a spousal act of sexual intercourse from achieving
its natural end. She is not refusing to make a complete gift of herself to her
spouse. She is fending off a rapist and
all his physicality. Clearly, her use of ovulation-suppressing hormones is not
an act of contraception....
There is an implication to the way Smith analyzes the story: "Rome" could have simply utilized the above analysis for the nuns who asked--thus "giving permission" under the specific outlined circumstances.
Or, as the legal beagles will say: it's facts and circumstances, folks.
Prof. Janet Smith is, arguably, this country's foremost moral theologian on issues having to do with sexuality. Here's her analysis of the "Congo nuns" situation. (Smith takes for granted the truth of the story, by the way).
....It also confuses many that the officials of the Church many decades
ago permitted nuns in the Congo who were in danger of being raped to take
hormones that prevent ovulation (which is what the “pill” does). In this case
the hormones would be taken with the intent of avoiding a pregnancy, but not a
pregnancy that would be the result of a spousal act of sexual intercourse. They
would not be altering the purpose of a spousal act of sexual intercourse. Rather,
they would be defending themselves against the possible consequences of an act
of rape. Keep in mind that it is justifiable for a woman to inflict great
physical harm, even death, on a man threatening rape. Her act of killing the
rapist is not justified as a “lesser evil” because killing is not a lesser evil
than enduring rape. Rather, her act is an act of just and moral self-defense.
There is an implication to the way Smith analyzes the story: "Rome" could have simply utilized the above analysis for the nuns who asked--thus "giving permission" under the specific outlined circumstances.
Or, as the legal beagles will say: it's facts and circumstances, folks.
Sunday, June 10, 2018
Cdl Dolan Slams Wacko Jebby Reese
No wishy-washy weasel-words here. Cdl. Dolan came out swinging against the milquetoast twit Jesuit Fr. Reese.
...In his May 27 article in Religion News Service (RNS), Father Reese contended that defunding Planned Parenthood would be “irresponsible” while suggesting that a vote for pro-choice Democrats would somehow save more babies than electing pro-life Republicans....
...Father Reese’s strategy, Dolan wrote Friday, constitutes “a capitulation to the abortion culture, and a grave weakening of the powerful pro-life witness.”...
...“Catholic tradition and basic human rights teach us that every human being has an inalienable right to life that must be recognized and protected in law,” he wrote. “While the law is not the only means of protecting life, it plays a key and decisive role in affecting both human behavior and thinking. We cannot give up!”..
At one time, Reese was the editor of America magazine, which is the voice of the US Jesuit order. His editorial positions there were also controversial, so he was fired from that position under the reign of Benedict XVI. Obviously, Reese cannot take a hint.
The Cardinal had more to say.
...The cardinal said that one of Reese’s “most troubling assertions” is that contraception should be employed to reduce abortions.
“In addition to rejecting the church’s teaching that contraception is itself morally flawed, and the fact that it can be medically harmful to women, his reasoning is questionable,” he wrote.
The fact is that more than half of women seeking abortions were already using contraception during the month they became pregnant, he added, while studies have shown that broad availability of contraception does not lessen abortion rates.
The cardinal also notes that many contraceptives are themselves abortifacients, meaning that they act by killing a newly conceived infant by preventing her from implanting in the womb....
That last graf is significant; Dolan was the Archbishop of Milwaukee and head of the Wisconsin Bishops' Conference when Gov. Doyle and the Abortion Party pushed through funding of abortifacient "birth control" pills and criminalized pharmacists who refused to provide birth control.
The Cardinal's piece is VERY good to see. The cult of abortion has metastasized and now includes the growing numbers of suicides, which was entirely predictable. In fact, both of them are predicated on the birth-control cult which teaches that life is merely a matter of convenience. Pp. Paul VI told us that artificial birth control would have these consequences, and both John Paul II and Benedict XVI warned us of the growing culture of Death resulting from 'the pill.'
It seems that Fr. Reese has chosen un-wisely. He is in great need of prayers, and the Jesuits should assign him to a bit of 'hermit time' to help him come back to the Faith.
...In his May 27 article in Religion News Service (RNS), Father Reese contended that defunding Planned Parenthood would be “irresponsible” while suggesting that a vote for pro-choice Democrats would somehow save more babies than electing pro-life Republicans....
...Father Reese’s strategy, Dolan wrote Friday, constitutes “a capitulation to the abortion culture, and a grave weakening of the powerful pro-life witness.”...
...“Catholic tradition and basic human rights teach us that every human being has an inalienable right to life that must be recognized and protected in law,” he wrote. “While the law is not the only means of protecting life, it plays a key and decisive role in affecting both human behavior and thinking. We cannot give up!”..
At one time, Reese was the editor of America magazine, which is the voice of the US Jesuit order. His editorial positions there were also controversial, so he was fired from that position under the reign of Benedict XVI. Obviously, Reese cannot take a hint.
The Cardinal had more to say.
...The cardinal said that one of Reese’s “most troubling assertions” is that contraception should be employed to reduce abortions.
“In addition to rejecting the church’s teaching that contraception is itself morally flawed, and the fact that it can be medically harmful to women, his reasoning is questionable,” he wrote.
The fact is that more than half of women seeking abortions were already using contraception during the month they became pregnant, he added, while studies have shown that broad availability of contraception does not lessen abortion rates.
The cardinal also notes that many contraceptives are themselves abortifacients, meaning that they act by killing a newly conceived infant by preventing her from implanting in the womb....
That last graf is significant; Dolan was the Archbishop of Milwaukee and head of the Wisconsin Bishops' Conference when Gov. Doyle and the Abortion Party pushed through funding of abortifacient "birth control" pills and criminalized pharmacists who refused to provide birth control.
The Cardinal's piece is VERY good to see. The cult of abortion has metastasized and now includes the growing numbers of suicides, which was entirely predictable. In fact, both of them are predicated on the birth-control cult which teaches that life is merely a matter of convenience. Pp. Paul VI told us that artificial birth control would have these consequences, and both John Paul II and Benedict XVI warned us of the growing culture of Death resulting from 'the pill.'
It seems that Fr. Reese has chosen un-wisely. He is in great need of prayers, and the Jesuits should assign him to a bit of 'hermit time' to help him come back to the Faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
