Romney Changes Hospital Contraception Rules (Removes religious exemption)

AP ^ | December 9, 2005 | GLEN JOHNSON

[Frank Sheed]

Click Here to Enter Board Intranet

Board of Directors 2005-2006

Officers President Thomas M. Pitre, MD Portland, OR President-elect Gerald P. Corcoran, MD Needham, MA Vice President Kathleen M. Raviele, MD Tucker, GA Treasurer Louis C. Breschi, MD Towson, MD Secretary Leonard P. Rybak, MD Springfield, IL

Board Members Immediate Past President R. Steven White, MD Daytona Beach, FL Past President John D. Lane, MD Langhorne, PA Regional Director Representative Jan Hemstad, MD Yakima, WA Regional Director Representative Lorna L. Cvetkovich, MD Ann Arbor, MI

Ex-Officio Members (Non-voting) Episcopal Advisor Most Rev. Robert F. Vasa, JCL, DD Diocese of Baker, Oregon Bend, OR Chaplain Rev. James R. Gould Diocese of Arlington, Virginia Fairfax Station, VA Parliamentarian Louis C. Breschi, MD Towson, MD Executive Editor, Linacre Quarterly Eugene F. Diamond, MD Chicago, IL FIAMC Representative Kevin Murrell, MD Augusta, GA

Appointed CMA Positions

Executive Vice President Robert J. Saxer, MD Ft. Walton Beach, FL

Consultant to the President Clement Cunningham, MD Rock Island, IL

Consultant to the President Patrick D. Guinan, M.D. Chicago, IL

Regional Directors

Region I Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont Helen T. Jackson, MD Brookline, MA James Suojanen, MD Medfield, MA Region II New York Anthony R. Pivarunas, MD Elma, NY Robert E. Madden, MD Bronxville, NY Region III Delaware, DC, Maryland New Jersey,Pennsylvania Virginia and West Virginia Lawrence L. Lyons, MD McKeesport, PA Lester A. Ruppersberger DO Washington Crossing, PA Region IV Indiana, Michigan and Ohio Lorna L. Cvetkovich, MD Ann Arbor, MI

Region V Alabama, Florida, Georgia North Carolina, Puerto Rico South Carolina and Tennessee Eric Norton, MD Spartanburg, SC Peter R. Morrow, MD St. Cloud, FL Region VI Arkansas, Kentucky Louisiana, Mississippi Oklahoma and Texas Albert E. Gunn, MD Houston, TX Martha M. Garza, MD San Antonio, TX Region VII Illinois, Iowa, Kansas Minnesota, Missouri Nebraska, North Dakota South Dakota and Wisconsin Thomas M. Zabiega, MD Lyons, IL Paul B. Dickinson, MD, JD St. Paul, MN Region VIII Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho Montana, Oregon Washington and Wyoming Lynne Bissonnette Pitre, MD, PhD Portland, OR Jan Hemstad, MD Yakima, WA

Region IX Arizona, Colorado, Nevada New Mexico and Utah William H. Brophy, MD Mesa, AZ Maricela P. Moffitt, MD Phoenix, AZ Region X California Stephen G. Watson, MD Van Nuys, CA John Lewis, MD Santa Clara, CA Region XI CANADA Howie L. Bright, MD Chilliwack, BC Brian Hynes, MD Sarnia Ontario Military Guild Richard A. Watson, MD Mountainside, NJ Medical Missions Director Daniel B. Reardon, MD East Greenwich, RI

[A.A. Cunningham]

Chaput never mentions a guarantee that ovulation will not occur.

'If the hormonal agents used in emergency contraception are intended to suppress ovulation, and if they’re applied at a point in a victim’s cycle where they truly can prevent ovulation, Catholics can support their use.

But many backers of emergency contraception intend much more than simply blocking conception. They define it to include methods that are abortifacient — in other words, that kill the fertilized egg after pregnancy has begun by preventing it from implanting in the uterine wall.

For Catholics and Catholic hospitals, this creates a grave moral problem. The size of an unborn human life doesn’t matter; the scientific fact that a human life has begun, does. Once conception occurs, two sets of rights must be protected: the woman unjustly violated, and the innocent life who results. To the degree that supporters of “emergency contraception” obscure this fact, as many often do, they act dishonestly.'

[Tax-chick]

Baby Whosis still has no name. My father thought "Frank" was a good idea :-). I doubt we'll still have the Christmas tree up by the end of January, but one never knows. (It will be less trouble this year, since our cat died this summer ... although I just learned on the Undead Thread that you can keep a cat out of the tree by spraying the tree with underarm deodorant!)

I'll get plenty of penance during Lent, at least :-).

[Frank Sheed]

I gotta run! Have some errands to attend to. I hope to bump into you on this Board before Christmas. I'll send a freepmail if you are tied up. With 7 adventurous kids, you may literally be tied up!

Say hi to Der Prinze for me!

Vivat Jesu!
F

PS Didn't know about that deodorant trick but I know that the anti-static things for the clothes dryer will keep your closet smelling neat and bug free for a good couple of months. Saw that on this board a while back. You may have posted it, C.!

[Tax-chick]

'If the hormonal agents used in emergency contraception are intended to suppress ovulation, and if they’re applied at a point in a victim’s cycle where they truly can prevent ovulation,

That's what I mean. His "if" here implies that the situation he discusses exists and can be accurately determined, under emergency conditions, by persons with limited knowledge of fertility signs and other relevant facts.

I don't believe this is possible. I've been charting for Natural Family Planning for over ten years, and I have two children whose date of conception I simply could not determine, based on my recorded observations. And my experience isn't unusual among the women I know. Identifying ovulation and fertility, and placing a date of conception appropriately in the cycle, can be quite complicated.

Either the Archbishop isn't aware of these facts, or he's endorsing a "Let's just assume ... our intentions are honorable ..." approach regarding a possible conception. If that's the case, I think he should admit that up front.

[Tax-chick]

Have a good afternoon - hope to cross paths with you again soon!

[A.A. Cunningham]

CHARTER FOR HEALTH CARE WORKERS
Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance

Abortion

139. The inviolability of the human person from conception prohibits as the suppression of prenatal life. This is "a direct violation of the fundamental right to life of the human being"[266] and is "an abominable crime."[267]

There is need to make explicit reference to suppression of life by abortion and its moral gravity because of the ease of recourse to this homicidal practice today and the ethical indifference towards it induced by a hedonistic and utilitarian culture—offspring of theoretical and practical materialism—which has spawned a truly abortionist mentality.

The elimination of the unwanted pregnancy has become a wide-spread phenomenon, financed by taxpayer's money and facilitated by permissive and guaranteed legislation.[268] All of this is the fatal cause for many people to avoid taking responsibility for the expected child and so to banalize a serious sin.[269]

"Unfortunately, this disturbing state of affairs, far from decreasing, is expanding.... At the same time a new cultural climate is developing and taking hold, which gives crimes against life a , giving rise to further grave concern: broad sectors of public opinion justify certain crimes against life in the name of the rights of individual freedom, and on this basis they claim not only exemption from punishment but even authorization by the state, so that these things can be done with total freedom and indeed with the free assistance of health care systems."[270]

140. The Church, like every person who holds life dear, cannot become accustomed to this mentality, and she raises her voice in defense of life, especially that of the defenseless and unknown, which embryonic and fetal life is.

She calls health care workers to , which does not tolerate any action which suppresses life, despite "the Ask of incomprehension, misunderstanding, and serious discrimination" which this consistency might cause.[271] Fidelity to de-legitimizes every intervention, surgical or pharmaceutical, intended to interrupt the pregnancy at any stage.

141. It is also true that in certain cases, by refusing an abortion, other important goods—which it is only normal that one would want to safeguard—are put in jeopardy. These could be: danger to the mother's health, the burden of another child, a serious malformation of the fetus, a pregnancy caused by rape.

These problems cannot be ignored or minimized, nor the reasons supporting them. But it must also be affirmed that none of them can objectively give the right to dispose of another's life, even in the initial phase. "Life, in fact, is too fundamental a good for it to be compared with certain disadvantages, even if they be very great."[272]

142. Ethical delegitimization applies to all forms of direct abortion, since it is an intrinsically blameworthy act. The use of substances or means which impede the implantation of the fertilized embryo or which cause its premature detachment is also an act of abortion. A doctor who would knowingly prescribe or apply such substances or means would cooperate in the abortion.

If the abortion follows as a foreseen but nor intended or willed but merely tolerated consequence of a therapeutic act essential for the mother's health, this is morally legitimate. The abortion in this case is the indirect result of an act which is not in itself abortive.[273]

143. If the health care worker is faced with legislation favorable to abortion he "must refuse politely but firmly."[274] "One can never obey a law that is intrinsically immoral, and this is so in the case of a law which admits, in principle, the lawfulness of abortion."[275]

As a result, doctors and nurses are obliged to be . The great, fundamental value of life makes this obligation a grave moral duty for medical personnel who are encouraged by the law to carry out abortions or to cooperate proximately in direct abortion.

Awareness of the inviolable value of life and of God's law protecting it, is antecedent to all positive human law. When the latter is contrary to God's law, conscience affirms its primary right and the primacy of God's law: "One must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

"It is not always easy to follow one's conscience in obedience to God's law. It may entail sacrifice and disadvantages, and one can in no way discount this cost; sometimes heroism is called for if one is to be faithful to these demands. Nevertheless, it must be clearly stated that the road of genuine progress for the human person passes through this constant fidelity to a conscience upholding rectitude and truth."[276]

144. As well as being a mark of professional loyalty, conscientious objection on the part of the health care worker, for the right reasons, is highly meaningful as a against innocent and defenseless life.

145. The gravity of the sin of abortion and the ease with which it is carried out, supported by law and the modern mentality, prompts the Church to threaten the penalty of for the Christian who procures it: "One who procures an effective abortion incurs excommunication."[277]

The excommunication has an essentially preventative and pedagogical significance. It is a forceful call from the Church, meant to arouse insensitive consciences, to dissuade people from an act which is absolutely incompatible with Gospel demands, and to awaken unreserved fidelity to life. One cannot be in ecclesial communion and at the same time disregard the Gospel of life through the practice of abortion.

The protection and acceptance of the expected child, its preference to all other values, is a decisive and credible witness which the Christian must give no matter what.

266. Holy See, , art. 4 la.

267. Ecum. Coun. Vatican II, Past. Constit., , n. 51. Cf. Paul VI, , in AAS 64 (1972) pp. 776-779.

268. Cf. John Paul II, " Jan. 25, 1986, in IX/1, 190-192, n. 3.

269. Cf. John Paul II, Nov. 3, 1979, in II/2, pp. 1034-10335.

270. John Paul II, Encyclical , March 25, 1995, n. 4.

271. Cf. John Paul II, , Dec. 28, 1978, in I p. 438 Cong. Doct. Faith , June 18,1971, in AAS 66 (1974) 744, n. 24. "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. 'You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish' ( 2, 2)" [CCC 2271].

272. Cf. Cong. Doct. Faith, , June 18, 1974, in AAS 66 (1974) 739.

273. CF Pius XII " Nov. 27, 1951, in AAS 43 (1951) p. 859.

274. Cf. John Paul II, , Jan. 26, 1980, in III/1, p. 194, n. 3.

275. Cong. Doct. Faith, , June 18, 1974. in AAS 66 (1974) 744. n. 22.

276. Ibid, n. 24.

277. , can. 1398. means that the excommunication need not be pronounced by authority in every single case. It is incurred by anyone who procures an abortion by the simple fact of having voluntarily procured it while aware of the excommunication.

[fella]

More babies getting the death penalty for an adults crime.

[Frank Sheed]

Bookmark.

I fear #273 was written at a time (1951) when sophisticated hormonal/cyle regulating drugs were not in wide use and when the procedure that is alluded to in this bolded portion was surgical in nature. See CMA note above.

F

[A.A. Cunningham]

You should ask him.

shepherd@archden.org

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I understand that we are only about 130,000 short in the US and are importing them from all over the world?

The situation is bad in CA. Someone calculated that if every RN who left active practice went back to work we would no longer have a shortage. The problem is retention, not recruitment. Burnout is high.

[RKBA Democrat]

"I remember vividly a story told by Fr. John Corapi who gave a Retreat somewhere in Florida. After the Retreat, a husband and wife couple, who owned a pharmacy, decided to refuse to fill all prescriptions for birth control pills and to rid their stores of all condoms and such. They almost went out of business until the local Baptist Minister noticed their plight and mentioned it in his Sunday service. In time, the word spread and the couple ended up serving only a Pro Life clientele and had four pharmacies!"

I'm delighted that it worked out for them. Do you have a name? If they fill prescriptions via the internet, that would be great.

The problem with pharmacies is even larger, though, when you consider that insurance companies are often forced to provide contraceptive coverage. That probably filters down to the arrangements they have with pharmacies.

"In my area, a group of women is trying to get a Pro Life OB/GYN practice to come into the area that only uses NFP and practices the Creighton methods. These folks are as rare as hen's teeth. So far, no luck."

I would think that few devout Catholics would be willing to go into OB/GYN in the first place, given that medical schools probably require abortion training.

It would be interesting to see what the Mormons are doing in this area.

[Treader]

Neither post #21, nor my reply to it,in #25, make any reference to abortion. I fail to see the correlation in your response. Regardless, my answer to your primary question is - of course NOT!

[BlackElk]

If a Catholic hospital can be legally forced to administer "morning-after (instant abortion) pills" in the case of "emergencies" such as rape (with or without actual violence) even if the mother decided it was "rape" a day or two later, then that hospital is being forced to abandon the Roman Catholic Church that owns it and the Faith that underlies the Roman Catholic Church.

If this society wants to go to hell in a handbasket with 50 million dead babies by surgical abortion alone and probably ten times that many dead from chemical (abortifacient pill) abortions, that does not yet mean that a society with our First Amendment may require Catholics to repudiate their Faith in order to run hospitals.

That which prevents implantation in the uterine wall is every bit as much an abortion, a homicide, a killing, a murder, as is surgical abortion or blowing your spouse's brain to kingdom come in order to avoid the expense of divorce, or following the professional ways of Mr. Tookie Williams, or acting as did Charles Manson and his "girls."

[BlackElk]

Whether or not you happen to be accurate in your observation as to #21 and #25, this thread IS about Mitt Romney purporting to have the right to require Catholic hospitals to commit abortions by chemical means. He has no such right and rape (even the ordinary understanding of the term as knockdown/stranger/alleyway) does not justify the murder of the baby who is a third party. Feel free to disagree but don't expect me to change my mind as to murder.

[Treader]

Calm down, FRiend. I fully support pro-life, and always have. My comment in #25, was an aside to someone who was either dismissing or doesn't recognize the deep long lasting violence of rape.

[little jeremiah]

later pingout.

[Tax-chick]

If this society wants to go to hell in a handbasket ... that does not yet mean that a society with our First Amendment may require Catholics to repudiate their Faith in order to run hospitals.

I hate to be a downer, BlackElk, but they're making an awfully strong try at doing it. Unfortunately, the imaginary "right" to abortion overrides every genuine, enumerated right in the Constitution.

Equally unfortunately, Catholic (and "Catholic") as well as other Christian social service organizations have surrendered to state power on so many other moral issues that they haven't cultivated the moral fortitude or logical clarity to stand firm on this one, I'm afraid.