Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Survey Finds 45% of Catholic Hospitals in US Dispensing Abortion Drugs
LifeSiteNews.com ^ | May 5, 2005 | LifeSiteNews.com

Posted on 05/06/2005 6:23:19 AM PDT by St. Johann Tetzel

Survey Finds 45% of Catholic Hospitals in US Dispensing Abortion Drugs

WASHINGTON, May 5, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A study funded by the radically pro-abortion organizations, the John Merck foundation and Catholics for a Free Choice, surveyed staff at all 597 Catholic hospitals in the United States and found that only 55% of them refused to dispense the abortifacient morning after pill.

Despite the deceptive name, “emergency contraceptive” works in many cases by stopping an already formed unborn child from attaching to the uterine wall. This effect is disputed by no reputable scientists. Catholic medical ethics is clear that abortion is, in all cases, and at all stages of development, the moral equivalent to murder and can never be condoned.

There could be trouble ahead for those Catholic hospitals who still adhere to Catholic teaching moreover. Washington State, Illinois and California have laws requiring emergency rooms to provide rape victims with information about the drug.

“What Catholic hospitals do is based on religious directives,” says Sister Sharon Park, executive director of the Washington State Catholic Conference. “They follow the teachings of our religious beliefs, which are protected under the First Amendment.”

The question remains, however, if Catholic hospitals adhere to Catholic moral teaching. The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services which are supposed to be followed by Catholic hospitals in the US contain some serious ambiguities. One clause says, that a woman who has been raped “should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault.”

The rules say, “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 or fertilization.” The use of testing to determine pregnancy is, however, extremely unreliable before some time has elapsed in a pregnancy. The morning after pill requires that no more than 72 hours has passed to be effective. Even a blood test cannot determine pregnancy within 72 hours of conception. Sister Sharon Park said that the use of ‘emergency contraception’ could be allowed in some cases because the drug does not in every case cause an abortion.

This ambiguity is rapidly becoming par for the course in modern Catholic hospitals. The erosion of Catholic medical ethics can be seen in the widespread support among Catholic bioethicists for pre-term inducement of pregnancy with handicapped children and passive euthanasia.

Read Interim article on the prevalence of euthanasia support among Catholic bioethicists:
http://www.theinterim.com/2004/jan/03priestargues....


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: abortion; catholichospitals; catholiclist; contraception
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101 next last

1 posted on 05/06/2005 6:23:20 AM PDT by St. Johann Tetzel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: .45MAN; AAABEST; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; annalex; Annie03; Antoninus; ...
You are being pinged because you previously requested to be added to my personal "orthodox Catholics" ping list. If you would like to be added or removed, please send me a FReepmail.
2 posted on 05/06/2005 6:24:04 AM PDT by St. Johann Tetzel (Sometimes "Defending the Faith" means you have to be willing to get your hands dirty...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Johann Tetzel

Not a surprise. Catholic universities and Catholic hospitals long ago stopped being Catholic, in any real sense of the term. Like the colleges, the hospitals traded off their Catholicism for federal money.


3 posted on 05/06/2005 6:25:53 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Johann Tetzel
We are only allowed to prescribe it at our hospital in cases of alleged rape.
4 posted on 05/06/2005 6:26:29 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Still in-excusable. Rape was not the fault of the baby. Killing a baby is still killing a baby.


5 posted on 05/06/2005 6:28:19 AM PDT by phil1750 (Love like you've never been hurt;Dance like nobody's watching;PRAY like it's your last prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: St. Johann Tetzel
Catholic medical ethics is clear that abortion is, in all cases, and at all stages of development, the moral equivalent to murder and can never be condoned.

The problem is that many (more likely most) Catholics in America have adopted the mindset that anything and everything is relative and flexible. Many are unwilling or unable to grasp the simple fact that God's laws are perpetual and cannot be changed simply because people no longer agree with them or find them convenient.

The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it, and a lie is a lie even if everybody believes it.

6 posted on 05/06/2005 6:31:14 AM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: St. Johann Tetzel
Many religious hospitals affiliated with the Church are CINO. Their adherence to Catholic moral teachings may be purely coincidental.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
7 posted on 05/06/2005 6:32:27 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius
Catholic hospitals long ago stopped being Catholic

For some, you're right. On the other hand, some hospitals are still overtly Catholic. St. Margaret Mercy (Lake County, Indiana), has an adoration chapel & plays the Angelus over their intercom 3x a day.
8 posted on 05/06/2005 6:34:21 AM PDT by hispanichoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
We are only allowed to prescribe it at our hospital in cases of alleged rape.

How can you tell with any degree of certainty that fertilization hasn't occurred? A woman's HcG levels--the usual way pregnancy is determined--don't start rising until after implantation. Hence, a drug that interferes with implantation is still abortifacient in nature.
9 posted on 05/06/2005 6:36:09 AM PDT by hispanichoosier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier
A woman's HcG levels--the usual way pregnancy is determined--don't start rising until after implantation.

Which is why most people don't consider someone pregnant until after implantation.

Good luck convincing most of the country that a single cell is a "baby."

10 posted on 05/06/2005 6:40:27 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier
On the other hand, some hospitals are still overtly Catholic.

Nice to know. I was born at Mercy. My kids, on the other hand, were born at Georgetown. More anti-Catholic than Catholic.

11 posted on 05/06/2005 6:41:06 AM PDT by lizma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: phil1750

Have you ever in your life had to deal with a woman after she was raped?

Yah, well on this we will part company. I don't consider an unimplanted fertilized egg as a "baby". I live in the real world and have to deal with real patients. To force a woman to bear a child thats the result of a rape, to tell her that, while she's still in the ER, talking to the police, having her other injuries treated, having evidence collected would be cruel beyond belief.


13 posted on 05/06/2005 6:56:16 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
To force a woman to bear a child thats the result of a rape, to tell her that, while she's still in the ER, talking to the police, having her other injuries treated, having evidence collected would be cruel beyond belief.

Moreover, no one has the obligation to risk her own life in support of another when she did not consent to take on that responsibility in the first place.
14 posted on 05/06/2005 7:00:28 AM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

Have you ever heard the tape of Dr. Laura's phone call with a woman who was raped?......and kept the baby, which she and her husband added to their family....VERY moving.....just wondering.....it really made me think.


15 posted on 05/06/2005 7:06:32 AM PDT by goodnesswins (Our military......the world's HEROES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

Yeah, well, probably 100 to 1 the woman is getting an abortion later when she realizes to her horror she is pregnant by her rapist. that doesn't strike me as a better solution.


16 posted on 05/06/2005 7:11:03 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

The GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Of the
CATHOLIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
72nd Annual Meeting & National Conference
October 17, 2003
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS WERE ADOPTED:

A Resolution in favor of prohibiting all "emergency contraception" in Catholic Hospitals.

Whereas women who are victims of a sexual assault should be treated with compassion and provided with all the legitimate means to prevent health consequences from the assault, And

Whereas pregnancy is a rare outcome of rape, occurring in less that 5% of cases, And

Whereas ample evidence exists that "emergency contraception" which can be given up to 120 hours after the act, adversely affects the function of the corpus luteum and affects endometrial development, making implantation of the blastocyst less likely, And

Whereas "emergency contraception" given prior to ovulation does not consistently prevent ovulation or pregnancy, and still has an effect on the corpus luteum and the endometrium, preventing implantation,

Therefore be it resolved that "emergency contraception" is a misnomer as it does not consistently prevent fertilization, And

Therefore, be it further resolved that as "emergency contraception" has the potential to prevent implantation whether given in the pre-ovulatory, ovulatory, or post-ovulatory phase, that it cannot be ethically employed by a Catholic physician or administered in a Catholic Hospital in cases of rape.

----- (Reference: Kahlenborn, Stanford and Larimore, "Post fertilization effect of hormonal emergency contraception" Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 2002; 36: 465-470)

17 posted on 05/06/2005 7:15:38 AM PDT by St. Johann Tetzel (Sometimes "Defending the Faith" means you have to be willing to get your hands dirty...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: livius
Not a surprise. Catholic universities and Catholic hospitals long ago stopped being Catholic, in any real sense of the term. Like the colleges, the hospitals traded off their Catholicism for federal money.

I would be pleased if the new Pope and the RC church would require these people to remove any reference to or implication that they are affiliated with church.

And the remark about federal money is spot on. President Bush wants all religious charities to be subject of government regulations.

18 posted on 05/06/2005 7:17:11 AM PDT by Protagoras (Religious arrogance is a sin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Bioethics
Bioethics

The "Morning After" Pill
By J. B. Shea, MD
Issue: May

Email This Article  Printer Friendly Page  

         On June 20, 2003, the New York State Legislature passed “Emergency Contraception for Rape Victims” legislation. This mandated hospitals to provide survivors of rape with the so-called ‘morning after pill’ and to counsel patients that these pills are contraceptives and do not cause abortion. Similar bills have been introduced in Massachusetts and Illinois.


The New York State Catholic Conference, which represents New York State’s bishops in matters of public policy, stated that they would accept the legislation “provided the drugs are not contra-indicated, the woman is not pregnant, and it is within a medically appropriate amount of time from the attack.” The conference also requested that the language that states that emergency contraception “cannot and does not cause abortions” be removed from the bill. The Ethical and Religious Directives (E.R.D.) for Catholic Health Care Services of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (no. 36) states, in regard to a woman who has been raped,

“If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she maybe treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however to initiate or recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect, the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”

 

Biological facts

This recent New York legislation has focused public attention on some moral problems which Catholic hospitals must face and solve. The relevant biological facts are as follows.

 

• First of all, an embryo is conceived at fertilization, not seven to fourteen days later at implantation. This fact was established 120 years ago by Wilhelm His, the father of human embryology, and is attested to in the standard human embryology textbooks and scientific literature up to this day.

• Further, the commonly-used morning after pills (MAP) act both by inhibiting ovulation (a contraceptive action) and by preventing implantation of the embryo in the wall of the uterus (an abortifacient action). This abortifacient action is “probably the main mechanism of action of the morning after pill.”1

• The fact is that a woman who has been raped within a few hours of going to the emergency room may or may not have already conceived. If the woman is near the time

of ovulation, the MAP does not consistently stop ovulation. If it fails to do so, it may well inhibit implantation, thereby causing an abortion. Therefore, “informed practicing Catholic physicians will not give the MAP to rape victims in any circumstances.”2 The MAP may unfavorably alter the endometrial lining of the uterus regardless of when in the cycle it is used, with the effect persisting for days. The reduced rates of observable pregnancy in women who use MAP in the pre-ovulatory, ovulatory, and post-ovulatory phases are consistent with a post-fertilization effect, an abortion.3

• The MAP is of two main types; one is a combination of estrogen and a progestogen and the other is a progestogen only. The former can act as a contraceptive by inhibiting ovulation, or it may cause an abortion by preventing implantation. The latter acts primarily as an abortifacient. The abortifacient progestogen type of MAP is currently in common use because it causes less nausea and vomiting than the combined type and is significantly more effective.4 It has been said that this progestogen is likely to become the method of choice (for emergency contraception) of the early twenty-first century.5

 

Moral controversy

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.”6

Nonetheless, the New York State Catholic Conference agreed to the use of the MAP provided “ the woman is not pregnant.” Many Catholic hospitals interpret “appropriate testing” as a hcG pregnancy test, which is accurate only if a woman is at least one week pregnant by the time of the test. If she is already pregnant at the time of the rape, the MAP is not administered. If the test is not positive, it is assumed that she is not pregnant and the MAP is administered.

The problem is that the test may be falsely negative if the pregnancy is too recent. A further problem is that the woman may have ovulated at the time of the rape or shortly afterwards and there is, at present, no test that can detect this with certainty. Therefore, when the MAP is used, an abortion may result.

 

Spectrum of opinion

There is a wide spectrum of opinion among Catholic health care providers, ethicists and theologians, as to how “appropriate testing” and “ evidence that conception has occurred” are to be interpreted.7 Some recommend that the MAP may be given after a single pregnancy test has proved negative.8 Others try to establish the presence or absence of pregnancy by more rigorous clinical and biological methods—the so-called

Peoria Protocol.9,10

According to the Peoria Protocol, if a woman has been sexually assaulted in the pre-ovulatory phase of her cycle, emergency contraception may be administered if clinical findings show that she is in the pre-ovulatory phase, the urinary luteinizing hormone test for ovulation is negative, and the blood progesterone test for ovulation is negative. If these criteria are not fulfilled, emergency contraception should not be given. The virtue of this approach is that it gives a more accurate estimate of the probability that ovulation has recently occurred and that therefore conception may have taken place.

However, even the Peoria Protocol does not provide certainty that a woman is not recently pregnant. It must be remembered that the fertilization process can occur very soon after intercourse. It takes place in the proximal end of the Fallopian tube close to the ovaries, and begins immediately at the moment when a sperm binds with and penetrates the membrane surrounding the oocyte, called the zona pellucida. This process of fusion of the sperm and oocyte is completed in 12 – 14 hours. A new unique human being has now come into existence.

 

Genetic experimentation

It is of interest to note that it is during this 12 – 14 hour period of the fertilization process that many researchers are currently doing extensive eugenic pronuclear genetic experimentation. These researchers argue, in justification of their research, as do many proponents of the notion that the MAP is only a contraceptive; that an embryo does not even exist before implantation. Their argument is based on the work of Clifford Grobstein, a frog embryologist, who in 1979 invented the false term “pre-embryo”, and also on the moral theory of Father Richard McCormick, S.J. who, relying on Grobsteins’s work, promoted the falsehood that it is not until approximately 14 days after conception (when implantation in the wall of the uterus has occurred) that a human embryo acquires moral status or “personhood”. This theory implies that a human being does not come into existence until 14 days after conception. These biological, philosophical and spiritual errors have become widely accepted as true and have caused incalculable evil throughout the world.

 

Some arguments

Some Catholic moralists argue that a rigorous degree of certainty that a woman is not already pregnant is not required before the MAP is given.11 Brother Daniel Sulmasy, Director of Ethics for St. Vincent’s Hospital in Manhattan and New York Medical College, goes so far as to say that the Peoria Protocol “goes beyond the normal protection given to any unborn child”, and that it “lays upon the faithful an almost impossible burden.”12

Others take a different approach. They consider that the doubt about whether the woman is already pregnant is analogous to the classic example of the hunter’s doubt about whether a movement behind a bush is caused by deer or a human being. They would argue that tradition requires taking the safer course, since an innocent human life may be at stake.

Moral theologian Msgr. William Smith, who teaches at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Dunwoodie, New York, says, “ 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.”13 Theologian Germain Grisez, Professor of Christian Ethics at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary, Emmitsburg, Maryland, states that douching with spermicide as immediate post-rape intervention would be morally licit, since such means are not abortifacient in nature.

 

Biological debate


The mechanism of action of hormonal emergency contraception remains unclear, and more than one mechanism is thought to be involved.14 It has been estimated that the MAP inhibits ovulation in 25% of cycles, if taken just before ovulation. The predominant effect, however, is to cause an abortion.15 The MAP may unfavourably alter the endometrial lining of the uterus regardless of when in the cycle it is used, with the effect persisting for days. The reduced rates of observable pregnancy compared with the expected rates in women who use the MAP in the pre-ovulatory, ovulatory, and post-ovulatory phase are consistent with a postfertilization effect, an abortion.16

Some researchers state that post-fertilization effects are of minor importance.17 Dr. Chris Kahlenborn points out, however, that even though no control trials have been done with women using the MAP, his conclusions are based on the best available data of case series with historical controls.

 

Review of literature

A review of the literature concerning the mechanism of action of hormonal preparations used for “emergency contraception”, published in January of 2001, stated that “Neither the minimum length of time from coitus to fertilization, when the oocyte is waiting for the sperm, nor the shortest interval when the sperm is waiting for the oocyte, have been determined in the human. Therefore, the exact theoretical amplitude of the window for acting before fertilization is undetermined, less so the actual window in real cases.”

The review also indicated that no study to date had “used ultrasound to confirm follicular rupture and to pinpoint at what stage of follicular development treatment was given.”18

Furthermore it stated that “Both logistical and ethical constraints prevent designing and performing experiments that can directly address what in fact happens to the crucial biological entities—sperm, oocyte, zygote or pre-implantation embryo—in the genital tract of women who receive emergency contraception, in comparison with those who receive a placebo.”19 The contraceptive effectiveness of the MAP has been shown to depend on the interval between intercourse and treatment, which is easy to obtain. On the other hand, there are no data for the interval between ovulation and treatment. “Given that, in 15 – 25% of the cycles treated with emergency contraception, the expected pregnancy is not prevented, chances are that there is a specific window in the cycle in which treatment is more likely to fail.”20 Therefore, at present, nobody can or should claim to know what happens when women are given the MAP.

 

Catholic hospitals

One wonders what is happening in Catholic hospitals in the U. S. and Canada in regard to the use of the MAP in rape cases. Dr. Kahlenborn, an internist from Pittsburg, Pa., was surprised to discover that nine Catholic health facilities in the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, including six Catholic hospitals, were violating Church teaching by allowing the dispensation of oral contraceptives or Depo Provera and/or allowing dispensation of the MAP, or a prescription for it, through emergency rooms to women who were allegedly raped. Some were even giving Depo Provera, a long-lasting abortifacient, to post partum patients. The excuse given by the physician was that, if they stopped doing it, they would lose patients to other hospitals. Apart from the fact that the use of the birth control pill is at odds with Catholic teaching (Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 2370) Kahlenborn explained that a woman who is taking the birth control pill will have an early abortion once each year that she takes the oral contraceptive. One can only wonder why so many Catholics distribute the MAP so freely. Perhaps they have bought into the scientifically false, but widely popularized notion, that an embryo does not even begin to exist before implantation.21

 

Comment

It may be that in regard to rape and the use of the MAP, the ERD (Ethical and Religious Directives) needs to be followed more carefully. There is an unacceptably great variation in the way in which the words “appropriate testing” are interpreted in practice in Catholic health care institutions. The New York Catholic Conference allows the MAP, “provided the woman is not pregnant.”

Two approaches to treating women who have been sexually assaulted have emerged in Catholic health care: the “pregnancy” approach, and the “ovulation” approach. Most hospitals use a hcG pregnancy test, to establish pregnancy. This test does not become positive until implantation of the embryo, which occurs usually around 10 days after ovulation. Some women who are pregnant may have a false negative pregnancy test at the time it is performed and the test may not become positive until the expected time of the next menstrual period, or even a few days later.

The ovulation approach, otherwise known as the Peoria Protocol, depends on a urine luteinizing hormone (LH) assay. This test is more accurate but may fail to indicate the presence of pregnancy, if taken too early in the pregnancy. Studies have shown that there are discrepancies between plasma progesterone levels and whether the woman is clinically in the phase before, or the phase after, ovulation22.

It should also be noted that manufacturers of urinary LH ovulation kits do not recommend their use for the purpose of contraception. Dr. Robert Barbieri, chief of obstetrics and gynecology, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, has stated that “by measuring hormone levels, doctors can often determine whether a woman has ovulated or whether implantation has occurred, but that it is nearly impossible to pinpoint fertilization, the step between.”23

 

Ultrasound diagnosis

In a rape victim ultrasound diagnosis may be able to tell if the ovaries contain a corpus luteum, but not an ovarian follicle. This fact may be confirmed by an estimation of the serum progesterone level. If a corpus luteum is present, she has already ovulated and may be pregnant. On the other hand ultrasound may show that she still has a follicle in an ovary and not a corpus luteum. She may therefore, ovulate at any time unless ovulation is impeded in some way such as by administration of gonadotrophin-releasing antagonists.

None of these tests or interventions have yet been used in rape cases. These facts cast doubt on the belief that the Peoria Protocol gives a sufficient degree of probability that a woman is not pregnant, to justify the use of the MAP. “Moreover, the virtue of justice demands equality, and as such excludes the use of probability when the established rights of another are concerned.” 24

A human life is not a disease like cancer of the uterus, where the law of double effect might justify the performance of a hysterectomy, despite the indirect and unintended death of a fetus. The embryo did come into existence as the result of a violent and unjust act, the mother’s rape, but her or his very existence is not an injustice in itself. To kill such an unborn child would simply add the sin and injustice of murder to the sin and injustice of rape.

In consideration of all of the above facts, I concur with Msgr.William Smith’s opinion that Catholic hospitals are not free to prescribe or provide anything with

abortifacient properties without contradicting their witness. Finally, it must be remembered that, as was stated by C.J. Doyle, Director of the Catholic Action League, this witness given by Catholic hospitals affects not only the patients and care givers in Catholic institutions, but those in secular institutions, putting pressure on them to violate their consciences or lose their jobs.25

 

ENDNOTES


1. Fabienne Grou, MD, Isabel Rodrigues, MD, M PH, "The morning-after pill – How long after?" Am. J. Obstet Gynecol. December, 1994, pp.1529-1534.
2. Chris Kahlenborn, "Clear thinking about crucial issues", www.lifeissues.net
3. Chris Kahlenborn et al., "Post Fertilization Effect of Hormonal Emergency Contraception", The Annals of Pharmacology 2002, March, vol. 36 pp. 465 –70.
4. WHO Task Force on Post-Ovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation, Randomized controlled trial of levonorgestrel versus the Yuzpe regimen of combined oral contraceptives for emergency contraception. Lancet. 1998; 352: 428-33.
5. Anna Glasier, British Medical Bulletin; 2000 56 (No. 3): 729-738.
6. Pontifical Academy for Life, "Statement on the so-called ‘morning after’ pill". Vatican City, 31 October, 2000.
7. Steven S. Smugar et al., "Informed Consent for Emergency Contraception: Variability in Hospital Care of Rape Victims." American Journal of Public Health, vol. 90, Sept. 2000, pp. 1372-76.
8. Ronald P. Hamel, Ph.D, and Michael R. Panicola, Ph.D, Health Progress, Sept.- Oct. 2002.
9. Joseph J. Piccione, "Rape and the Peoria Protocol", Ethics and Medics, vol. 22, September 1997, p.2.
10. St. Francis Medical Center, Interim Protocol Sexual Assault: Contraception Treatment Component, Peoria, IL. Oct. 1995.
11. Peter J. Cataldo and Albert S. Morczewski, editors, Catholic Health Care Ethics: a Manual for Ethics Committees, National Catholic Bioethics Center, Boston, 2001 p.11/10.
12. Mary DeTurris Poust, "A ‘morning after’ assault on religious freedom", Our Sunday Visitor, 6/29/2003.
13. Skip O’Neel, "Silence Greets Emergency Contraceptive Bill" San Francisco Faith, Articles July/August, 2002.
14. Trussell J., Raymond E.G. "Statistical evidence about the mechanism of action of the Yuzpe regimen of emergency contraception." Obstet. Gynecol. 1999;93: 872/6
15. Keith Moore and T. N. Persaud, "The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology" (6th. Ed.) Philadelphia. W.B. Saunders Co. 1998 pp. 45,58,59, 532 Kubba A.A. et al., "The biochemistry of human endometrium after two regimens of postcoital contraception" Fertil Steril 1986; 45: 512-6. Ugocsai G. et al. "Biological microscopic and scanning electron microscopic investigation of the effects of postinor d-norgesterol in rabbits." Contraception 1984; 30 : 153-9.
16. Chris Kahlenborn et al. "Postfertilization Effect of Hormonal Emergency Contraception" The Annals of Pharmacology, 2002, March, vol.36, pp.465-70.
17. Roberto Rivera et al. "The Mechanism of Action of Hormonal Contraceptives and Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices", American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 181, Nov. 1999 p. 1267.
18. Horatio B. Croxatto et al., Contraception, 63 (2001), 111-121.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. "Archdiocese’s Hospitals Dispensing Abortifacient Contraception." St. Catherine Review, Jan/Feb. 1999 issue.
22. Glasier A. et al. "Comparison of mifepristone and high dose oestrogen-progestogen for emergency postcoital contraception." N Eng J, Med. 1992; 327: 1041-4, Webb AMC et al. "Comparison of the Yuzpe regime, danazol and mifepristone in oral post-coital contraception." BMJ, 1992; 305: 927-31.
23. Liz Kowalczyk "Groups, doctors, seek wider use of ‘morning after’ pill." The Boston Globe, Feb. 28, 2003.
24. Catholic Encyclopedia.
25. C.J.Doyle, "Action League Opposes Emergency Contraception Bill" The Wnderer, July 17, 2003.

© Copyright 1997-2004 Catholic Insight
    Updated: Apr 6th, 2005 - 14:29:00 

19 posted on 05/06/2005 7:18:31 AM PDT by St. Johann Tetzel (Sometimes "Defending the Faith" means you have to be willing to get your hands dirty...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: St. Johann Tetzel
The embryo did come into existence as the result of a violent and unjust act, the mother’s rape, but her or his very existence is not an injustice in itself. To kill such an unborn child would simply add the sin and injustice of murder to the sin and injustice of rape.

No, it wouldn't.

Consider that you are knocked over the head with a mallet and rendered unconscious, a vicious act of violence. Your attackers turn out to be mad scientists intent on creating a medical miracle.

You awaken to find yourself on a gurney, tubes connected to your body. You observe the tubes continue on and enter machines and the body of another person. This person did not solicit your beating and has no connection to the individuals who beat you. You are told that unless you stay on the gurney attached to these machines for the next nine months, the other individual will die.

Do you have any obligation to stay on the gurney or can you rip the tubes out of your body and walk away with a clear conscience? Does walking away simply add to the "sin and injustice" of the initial violence that was perpetrated against you?
20 posted on 05/06/2005 7:27:51 AM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
Do you believe in capital punishment? For what crimes?

Murder?

How about rape?

I don't believe in capital punishment for rape, and I doubt you do either. Castration? Sure!

So why do some people advocate Capital Punishment for the other innocent victim of rape, not the woman but the baby so conceived?

21 posted on 05/06/2005 7:31:13 AM PDT by St. Johann Tetzel (Sometimes "Defending the Faith" means you have to be willing to get your hands dirty...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: St. Johann Tetzel

While pregnancy following rape is uncommon, In the individual patient to whom it occurs it's incidence is 100%.
We limit treatment to 72 hours.
Feel free to treat YOUR patients by any rules you choose. I am very comfortable with how I treat mine.


22 posted on 05/06/2005 7:38:00 AM PDT by Kozak (Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
I'm just posting the guidelines ALL Catholic hospitals should be following, if they are more than Catholic-in-name-only.

You do whatever you wish. Just know that if you are working in a Catholic institution, and your regimen violates what I posted, you are violating basic and foundational Catholic moral teachings.

23 posted on 05/06/2005 7:43:55 AM PDT by St. Johann Tetzel (Sometimes "Defending the Faith" means you have to be willing to get your hands dirty...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: St. Johann Tetzel
So why do some people advocate Capital Punishment for the other innocent victim of rape, not the woman but the baby so conceived?

Because a person has no obligation to support the life of another or to risk her own life in support of another if that obligation was not first entered into with the consent of the person.

If a woman has consensual sex and ends up becoming pregnant, the consensual act of sex is a consensual entering into an obligation to support any child conceived from that sex. She entered into the obligation to support the life of the conceived baby by having consensual sex.

A rape victim has not entered into such a consensual obligation and has no such obligation. Just as you would have no obligation to stay on that gurney in my example.
24 posted on 05/06/2005 8:00:06 AM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kozak

There are a lot of cruelties in the world. It doesn't give license to kill an innocent person in order to soothe one's feelings.


25 posted on 05/06/2005 8:04:45 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
Because a person has no obligation to support the life of another or to risk her own life in support of another if that obligation was not first entered into with the consent of the person.

The God-given Right to Life recognized by our Founding Fathers supercedes the consent of those so inconvenienced.

A baby's right to life trumps a woman's right to consent. Its the not baby's fault that a criminal violated the mother's right to consent, and the baby should not be sentenced to death for the crime/sin of the rapist.

26 posted on 05/06/2005 8:28:37 AM PDT by St. Johann Tetzel (Sometimes "Defending the Faith" means you have to be willing to get your hands dirty...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC

Fact: I did not consent to be born.

Question: Do I have a moral obligation to care for my parents if they become capacitated later in life - either by caring for them personally or taking on the financial burden for someone else to?

or

Would it be immoral to leave them to lay in their own waste, uncared for in a deteriorating and inhuman environment?

Can I argue, with a clear conscience, since I did not consent to be born, I don't have a moral obligation?


27 posted on 05/06/2005 8:31:32 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

Sorry - "incapacitated"


28 posted on 05/06/2005 8:32:06 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: All; Canticle_of_Deborah; vox_freedom; Gerard.P; te lucis; donbosco74; Robert Drobot; rogator; ...

ping


29 posted on 05/06/2005 8:33:49 AM PDT by murphE (The crown of victory is promised only to those who engage in the struggle. St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC

Your obligation is to stay on the gurney since an innocent life depends on your doing so.


30 posted on 05/06/2005 8:34:45 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kozak
I am very comfortable with how I treat mine.

You should not be. If you provide abortifacients, regardles of any other consideration, you assist in murder. You feelings, or absence of feelings, do not alter the objective moral reality.

31 posted on 05/06/2005 8:37:42 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Your obligation is to stay on the gurney since an innocent life depends on your doing so.

This is so simple, so common sense. Only in this post-Christian era could otherwise decent people be so deceived as to think otherwise.

32 posted on 05/06/2005 8:38:47 AM PDT by St. Johann Tetzel (Sometimes "Defending the Faith" means you have to be willing to get your hands dirty...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: St. Johann Tetzel

Our society is rushing headlong into a vegetative state.


33 posted on 05/06/2005 8:41:32 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

You're not talking about single cells. A Zygote is not visibly human, but it is very defnitely multi-cellular.


34 posted on 05/06/2005 8:49:36 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
You are told that unless you stay on the gurney attached to these machines for the next nine months, the other individual will die.

This analogy fails for a lot of reasons. A pregnant woman is not nearly so constrained. In fact, I will go way out on a limb as a man and say that the emotional complications far outweigh he physical complications.

I really don't know if she could successfully detach the child from the event.

But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if a woman who knowingly had an abortion following a rape would be nearly as tortured by her decision as any other abortive mother who truly reflects on what she has done.

It would be nice to be able to believe that this sort of thing could be resolved by taking a pill, but I really can't buy that. When someone commits an evil act, the destruction is real as are the consequences. Attempts to quickly and easily undo that evil are often just as destructive as it is.

35 posted on 05/06/2005 8:51:59 AM PDT by hopespringseternal (</i>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
President Bush wants all religious charities to be subject of government regulations.

I think this is a very difficult situation; I think Bush means well, but any time a group starts taking federal money, it also becomes subject to a million laws that will essentially undermine its religious nature.

Personally, I think even hospitals could make enough money to exist without federal funding, if they offered a genuine alternative to the modern US attitude towards life (which is, "get rid of it!"). That and bringing back religious orders dedicated to nursing, which they had back in the old days before the good sisters decided they wanted to put on performances of the Vagina Monologues and maybe get ordained to the priesthood while they were at it.

36 posted on 05/06/2005 8:52:24 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: hispanichoosier

There are definitely some good Catholic hospitals left. I think we'll see more of them under the new Pope, too.


37 posted on 05/06/2005 8:53:43 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
And the remark about federal money is spot on. President Bush wants all religious charities to be subject of government regulations.

And many religious charities are chomping at the bit to get their piece of the Federal money pie.

I'm not a religious person, but if I were I would run screaming from any suggestion that my particular group get intertwined with government when it came to charitable works.

38 posted on 05/06/2005 8:56:49 AM PDT by Modernman ("Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC

Very good analogy.


39 posted on 05/06/2005 8:58:42 AM PDT by Modernman ("Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: livius
I think this is a very difficult situation;

I disagree. It's simple, the government has no legitmate role in churches or charity whatsoever.

I think Bush means well

So did Roosevelt. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

but any time a group starts taking federal money, it also becomes subject to a million laws that will essentially undermine its religious nature.

Precisely, not to mention involving themselves with force based groups, like government.

Personally, I think even hospitals could make enough money to exist without federal funding,

Indeed, no involvement with hospitals is needed or useful. Anything which cannot exist on it's own without the use of force isn't valued enough by people to exist in the first place.


40 posted on 05/06/2005 9:01:27 AM PDT by Protagoras (Only liberals support the death tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Your obligation is to stay on the gurney since an innocent life depends on your doing so.

Why? I have not taken that responsibility on myself. It is unfortunate that the other person has to die, but I have no moral duty to help them.

Your logic is the groundwork for all socialist and communist programs run by government. Following your logic, if the government were to leave a comatose person in your living room and told you to take care of them, you would have a moral obligation to do so.

41 posted on 05/06/2005 9:02:19 AM PDT by Modernman ("Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: annalex
If you provide abortifacients, regardles of any other consideration, you assist in murder. You feelings, or absence of feelings, do not alter the objectivesubjective moral reality opinion.

Corrected your statement.

42 posted on 05/06/2005 9:04:04 AM PDT by Modernman ("Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
And many religious charities are chomping at the bit to get their piece of the Federal money pie.

They are fools who have fallen for the trickery. Every imbecile who has been cheated by a grifter or con man fell for the trick. It played on their greed.

I'm not a religious person, but if I were I would run screaming from any suggestion that my particular group get intertwined with government when it came to charitable works.

Or any other activity if they are smart.

43 posted on 05/06/2005 9:04:06 AM PDT by Protagoras (Only liberals support the death tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC
Moreover, no one has the obligation to risk her own life in support of another when she did not consent to take on that responsibility in the first place.

The circumstances NEVER warrent killing an innocent person. If you want to put the rapist to death and liquidate his assets, so be it. But you cannot make innocent individuals who also did not consent to being put into this situation the victim.

Using your logic, were a newborn child to be orphaned through an automobile accident, the child's next of kin could leave him to starve on the street because they "did not consent to take on that responsibility in the first place."

The solution is to make childbirth safer. If you are talking about the burden of raising a child, that burden does not exist as there are hundreds of thousands of couples - here in the US - that will take a child even if they have severe medical defects.

44 posted on 05/06/2005 9:21:32 AM PDT by mbraynard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: St. Johann Tetzel
A baby's right to life trumps a woman's right to consent.

That's the jist of it and where people will disagree.
45 posted on 05/06/2005 9:29:11 AM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Your obligation is to stay on the gurney since an innocent life depends on your doing so.

I disagree. Such an obligation easily is used by socialists and communists alike to require people to give of themselves in order to make the lives of other people better. It is the basis of the redistributive income tax and every welfare program.

Without my affirmative consent to be placed on the gurney, I can get off of it anytime I want.
46 posted on 05/06/2005 9:41:19 AM PDT by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Modernman; BikerNYC

Modernman,

Given your silly "correction" in 42, I am not convinced if your presence here is to argue objective truths. Most moderns are disinclined to do so, and your screen name makes modernity your distinguishing characteristic, which you seem to wear proudly. But here it goes.

Your moral duties are not limited to contractual duties, which arise from consent. Most people, for example, are free from contractual obligations to not murder anyone outside of your family, yet we have a duty not to murder.

Your second argument, regarding supposed justification of socialism, contains no logic. Most errors, and socialism is no exception, refer to objective truths as they reach wrong conclusions. This is no reason to discard the truth. For example, if an airplane is designed badly and falls on the ground, that would not falsify the laws of gravity. Where is the socialism's error? Socialism imputes a situation of dependence where none objectively exists. Generally, a poor man's life does not depend on the rich man's possessions. Since there is no dependence, there is no duty to distribute wealth. In the situation of pregnancy, the baby's life is directly dependent on the mother's body, so the motherly duty is objective rather than imagined. Similarly in the contrived example with the kidnaping and the gurney.


47 posted on 05/06/2005 9:57:36 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

I find it ironic that your Tagline quotes a deathbed convert to Catholicism.


48 posted on 05/06/2005 10:01:13 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: annalex
In the situation of pregnancy, the baby's life is directly dependent on the mother's body

Sure. But without the mother's consent to such dependence, she has no moral duty to continue such dependence.

A moral duty cannot be forced upon you by the actions of another.

49 posted on 05/06/2005 10:04:51 AM PDT by Modernman ("Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC

Your analogy in Post 20 fails to connect the issues. In your analogy, the beneficiary is being kept alive by extraordinary means, and would therefore not necessarily be entitled to live at the burden of others. In which case, non-consent is moral grounds to demand release from the imposed obligation to keep another person alive.


50 posted on 05/06/2005 10:05:32 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson