Replies

There's no gray area with Judy Brown

Yeah, just like the pharisees of Jesus's day. Sadly, her fundamentalist protestant tactics (yes, I know she is a Catholic) have done a great deal of harm to the pro-life movement.

as the Catholic Church teaches you are either pro life or not, period.

Not true on two counts. First and much to Judy Brown's chagrin, the Church does permit an "exception" to the prohibition against the deliberate killing of an embryo. Such an act is permissible as a secondary effect of a legitimate defense. Thus, an ectopic pregnancy may be removed to save the life of the mother. I have an archive of Ms. Brown stating on the EWTN's question and answer forum the false and dangerous advice that the fallopian tube must first rupture before such a procedure would be acceptable.

Answer by Judie Brown on 10-26-2001:
Dear Tim,
To "remove an ectopic embryo" is to directly attack a human being with an action that will result in her death. And because #1 is what happens in the vast majority of cases, it is best to let nature take its course and avoid the temptation to play God.
You are presuming that if the tube becomes infected, the mother will suffer harm. Not so. If the treating physician is doing his job properly, and imminent death is threatened, he will remove the diseased tube in a timely way. She will survive this with one functioning fallopian tube, which means she can still bear a child.
Hope this answers the question.
Judie Brown

She is more than just wrong, her dangerous theology could get some woman killed. Thankfully the wise nun's at EWTN appear to have removed this radical error from their web site.

Second, your absolutist statement about the Church is simply in error. From Evangelium Vitae, section 73:

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

ALL's fervent and blind work against positive restrictions on abortion such as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban is both destructive and counter to church teaching. It is of little surprise that ALL seems to side more with Planned Parenthood more than it does with National Right to Life on pro-life legislation. I have personally talked to pro-life legislators who are dumbfounded by having a seemingly pro-life organization like ALL work side-by-side with PP to sink pro-life legislation that would limit and reduce abortion. Although ALL does some good protesting work, their misguided legislative agenda is a liability to the pro-life movement.