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

Skip to comments.

Remember: Romney Does Flip-Flop and Forces Catholic Hospitals to Distribute Morning-After-Pill
LifeSite.net ^ | 9 Dec 05 | Gudrun Schultz

Posted on 12/29/2007 1:28:59 PM PST by big'ol_freeper

BOSTON, December 9, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue.

The Republican governor had earlier defended the right of hospitals to avoid dispensing the “morning-after pill” on the grounds of moral dissent. The Boston Globe reported that Romney’s flip on the issue came after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a preexisting statute related to the abortifacient pill.

The pill, a high dose of hormones, acts as an abortifacient by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall, thereby causing the death of the child.

The Department of Public Health issued a statement earlier in the week allowing hospitals to dissent from the new law, under a previous statute that protects private hospitals from being forced to provide abortion services or contraceptives.

Daniel Avila, associate director for policy and research for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, said yesterday in an interview with the Boston Globe that Catholic hospitals still have legal grounds to avoid providing the pill, despite the new legislation. The new bill did not expressly repeal the original law protecting the rights of Catholic facilities.

“As long as that statute was left standing, I think those who want to rely on that statute for protection for what they’re doing have legal grounds.” (Boston Globe)

The Conference has been fighting this new legislation for several years. In 2003, in a statement to the Joint Committee on Health Care, they outlined their concern over the proposed Emergency Contraception Access Act (ECAA), stating: “It will force Catholic medical personnel to distribute contraceptives even in cases involving the risk of early abortion. It also furthers a national strategy ultimately directed towards coercing Catholic facilities to provide insurance coverage for, and to perform, abortions.”

The governor’s turnaround is especially unexpected since Romney has been presenting himself as a conservative on social issues in anticipation of a possible run for the presidency in 2008. This decision will certainly undermine the credibility of his conservatism with Republican Party members that may have been inclined to support him up to now.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: catholichospitals; planb; religiousfreedom; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
More proof of Romney support for the Culture of Death.
1 posted on 12/29/2007 1:29:04 PM PST by big'ol_freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Being as this is a two-year old news story, it begs the question—how did Catholic hospitals resolve this situation? Did they go along with the law, or did they force change by shutting down?


2 posted on 12/29/2007 1:34:30 PM PST by hunter112 (Hillary Clinton - America’s Ex-Wife®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

The answer to that does not change what Mitt-flop did...He trampled all over religious freedom and demonstrated his commitment to the Culture of Death.

The Catholic Church is still fighting it.


3 posted on 12/29/2007 1:37:31 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (Mitt to supporters: "DON'T TRY TO DEFEND MY LIBERAL RECORD. BELITTLE THEM WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Well, you know, Mitt consulted his lawyers.....


4 posted on 12/29/2007 1:38:59 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
Romney had no choice but to enforce the law:

Legislators override Mass. governor's veto of emergency contraception bill

BOSTON (AP) - The state legislature voted Thursday to override the governor's veto of a measure that will expand access to emergency contraception by requiring hospital emergency room doctors to offer the medication to rape victims.

The measure, which Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed in July, will also make the medication available without a prescription from pharmacies. A provision that exempted Catholic hospitals was eventually dropped from the legislation.

The Senate voted unanimously 37-0 to override the veto. In the House, the vote was 139-16 to override, far more than the two-thirds needed.

http://aol.mediresource.com/channel_health_news_details.asp?news_id=7833&news_channel_id=145&channel_id=145

 


5 posted on 12/29/2007 1:49:31 PM PST by BarnacleCenturion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

How any Conservative worth their salt could even be considering voting for anyone other than Fred or Duncan Hunter is unbelievable to me. It’s like I’m in the Twilight Zone!


6 posted on 12/29/2007 1:50:27 PM PST by rhinohunter (Thompson/Steele '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion
Ever hear of moral leadership. He failed it.




U.S. Army Retired


7 posted on 12/29/2007 1:50:38 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (Mitt to supporters: "DON'T TRY TO DEFEND MY LIBERAL RECORD. BELITTLE THEM WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Call it what it is: An ABORTION pill.


8 posted on 12/29/2007 1:51:09 PM PST by 2harddrive (...House a TOTAL Loss.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive
Mitt is a liar and a cheat...that is why he fits perfectly in Massachusetts Politics
9 posted on 12/29/2007 1:53:32 PM PST by Yorlik803 ( Please dont drag your filth into my swamp...........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rhinohunter
You hit it right on the nose. We have far too many people who claim to be conservatives who evidently took the label without reading the manual. They've never internalized those core values of conservatism which made this country great or they would never support the RINOs who are running for the Republican nomination. They would support either Fred or Duncan.




U.S. Army Retired


10 posted on 12/29/2007 1:53:40 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (Mitt to supporters: "DON'T TRY TO DEFEND MY LIBERAL RECORD. BELITTLE THEM WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
Did you miss the three words "sexual assault victims?" Get honest here.
11 posted on 12/29/2007 1:55:40 PM PST by GOP_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
The answer to that does not change what Mitt-flop did...

I'm in complete agreement, but Paul Harvey has inspired me to ask for "...the rest of the story."

The Catholic Church is still fighting it.

Glad to hear it, but are they fighting it by dispensing abortifacients while lobbying the Massachusetts legislature, or are they fighting it by refusing to do so and seeking injunctions in the courts to prevent the law from being carried out, pending Massachusetts Judicial Court review? That is the same court which made gay marriage the law of the land in the only state which recognizes it.

Shutting down would get people thinking about this in a quick hurry.

12 posted on 12/29/2007 1:56:00 PM PST by hunter112 (Hillary Clinton - America’s Ex-Wife®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady
Did you miss the three words "sexual assault victims?" Get honest here.

Do the sexual assault victims have to file a police report, or can they just come in and anonymously allege that they were sexual assault victims? Is it 'sexual assault' if the guy doesn't call the next morning?

13 posted on 12/29/2007 1:58:52 PM PST by hunter112 (Hillary Clinton - America’s Ex-Wife®)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady
You are going to excuse the murder of innocent pre-born persons because of that? What are they guilty of?

Nazi logic...some people are of less value than others.




U.S. Army Retired


14 posted on 12/29/2007 1:58:55 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (Mitt to supporters: "DON'T TRY TO DEFEND MY LIBERAL RECORD. BELITTLE THEM WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady
So you are claiming that this was just for people who had testified against a violent attacker , after procedings to show cause had occurred? Or are you saying there are magic words a woman can say - which makes it okay to slaughter a child just on her say so?

Pick which one you are claiming. Ultimately this only goes two ways.

15 posted on 12/29/2007 2:04:26 PM PST by MrEdd (Heck is the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aren't going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
He trampled all over religious freedom and demonstrated his commitment to the Culture of Death.

The Catholic Church is still fighting it.

If any GOVT. money went to pay for anything in that Hospital then they were on the hook so to speak to take the Govt. orders. So it shall be written...so it shall be done.

16 posted on 12/29/2007 2:06:22 PM PST by Don Corleone (Leave the gun..take the cannoli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
We are not talking legalities here. Just because something is law does not make it morally correct. Flip Romney claims to be pro-life. His actions say otherwise.




U.S. Army Retired


17 posted on 12/29/2007 2:09:41 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (Mitt to supporters: "DON'T TRY TO DEFEND MY LIBERAL RECORD. BELITTLE THEM WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

“ROMNEY: Flipping With Power Since Before 2005”

An indecisive man doesn’t inspire a country.


18 posted on 12/29/2007 2:11:02 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Yes, he tried to stop this, but his legal counsel evaluated the new law and determined that legally he had to do this.

Conservatism means we respect the rule of law, even when we don’t like what the law says.

I generally excuse rank-and-file conservatives though for being upset with stuff like this, because I understand how you can be so committed to a cause that you want to ignore the law, especially when the law is a bad law.

It’s why I couldn’t be a judge, because judges have to pledge to uphold the law and the constitution, which means that they have to rule FOR abortion because of the Supreme Court precedent, and I couldn’t bring myself to do that.

But a lot of good pro-life judges are able to do that, probably consoling themselves with the fact that even if they ruled against abortion, they’d simply be overturned by the appeals courts.

Romney is pro-life, and even as Governor ruled in favor of life and against the culture of death.

Even this article noted that, even in 2005, Romney was known for standing up for conservative values, and so this case was seen as an aberration.

Romney had tried to argue that even though the new law removed the exemption for Catholic hospitals, they didn’t explicitly say they were repealling the previous exemption.

His legal counsel told him that was an indefensible position. He may have been wrong — I understand they are still fighting over it. But a conservative must stand for the law, even a liberal law that they opposed and vetoed.

We applaud Bush for vetoing things the democrats pass, but if they overrode his veto, he’d have to implement the law, even if he didn’t like it.


19 posted on 12/29/2007 2:16:36 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

In other words, so far it looks like Romney’s legal counsel was correct, and he had no choice. But let’s ignore that because it doesn’t advance our misleading insination that Mitt Romney WANTED to do this.

If you were arguing that Mitt was too deferential to his legal counsel, we could have a discussion about that (and the jury is obviously still out because we haven’t won the court case). That would at least be a justifiable opinion and a rational argument.

But it is clear Romney did NOT want to approve this pill, OR to force hospitals to dispense it. HE vetoed the legislation, and when the veto was overridden, he tried to maintain the exemption for hospitals. Only when he was told that legally he had no right to do so did he give in and enforce the law.


20 posted on 12/29/2007 2:22:07 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Consulting legal counsel is a good thing to do when deciding what the law requires you to do.

I imagine if you are ever confronted with a claim you are violating the law, you will be consulting a lawyer.


21 posted on 12/29/2007 2:22:56 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rhinohunter

No, you are in the way-back zone, where people post 2-year-old stories to misrepresent the facts.


22 posted on 12/29/2007 2:23:38 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

He’s no George Wallace! ;)


23 posted on 12/29/2007 2:28:37 PM PST by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast ( "Do well, but remember to do good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

It’s easy to say what you’re saying as a male, but place yourself in a woman’s situation. I wouldn’t want you to decide this for me, and I am pro-life. You’re words “Nazi logic” is vastly overreaching (as you rountinely do). Believe it or not, you’re in the minority on this.


24 posted on 12/29/2007 3:31:30 PM PST by GOP_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Exactly. He’d better learn how government works.


25 posted on 12/29/2007 3:33:43 PM PST by GOP_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady
Oh horse hockey. I don't have to be a woman to know evil. You can't say in one case its not ok to murder a pre-born but in the next it is...that shows a clear lack of moral integrity. From Pope John Paul II:

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. "Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action"...."you can't make licit that which by its very nature is illicit."




U.S. Army Retired


26 posted on 12/29/2007 3:39:56 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (Mitt to supporters: "DON'T TRY TO DEFEND MY LIBERAL RECORD. BELITTLE THEM WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

And I’m Catholic. I see no problem with the Catholic church not doing this, but, as usual, you only stated half of the facts. And, yes, you are in the minority on this — maybe not when it comes to the Catholic church, but you are in the minority.


27 posted on 12/29/2007 3:43:46 PM PST by GOP_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Remember, we are fighting a WOT and Huckabee knows nothing about foreign policy.


28 posted on 12/29/2007 3:45:07 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eva
What does this thread have to do with Huckabee?




U.S. Army Retired


29 posted on 12/29/2007 3:48:30 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (Mitt to supporters: "DON'T TRY TO DEFEND MY LIBERAL RECORD. BELITTLE THEM WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Most of the attacks on Romney are coming from the single issue voters who are touting Huckabee.


30 posted on 12/29/2007 3:50:39 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Lady
At one time slavery was supported by a majority of citizens. Did that make it right? No. Right and wrong is not determined by what the majority believes. Something is right or wrong in its very nature.




U.S. Army Retired


31 posted on 12/29/2007 3:51:10 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (Mitt to supporters: "DON'T TRY TO DEFEND MY LIBERAL RECORD. BELITTLE THEM WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Eva
Um, I've not seen too Huckabee supporters on FR. Most of the attacks against Romney stem from the fact that he is a lying, flip-flopping, gay-loving, gun-grabbing liberal.

Over 80% of Freepers support Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter, so I believe it would be more accurate to say their supporters are exposing Mitt Romney for what he is.




U.S. Army Retired


32 posted on 12/29/2007 3:54:12 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (Mitt to supporters: "DON'T TRY TO DEFEND MY LIBERAL RECORD. BELITTLE THEM WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

It doesn’t matter if they are supporting Hunter or Thompson or anyone else right now. The only two candidates who matter in Iowa are Romney and Huckabee. Huckabee would be worse than Romney. Huckabee is as phoney as Elmer Gantry, and far more dangerous.

Anyone who attacks Romney at this point is supporting Huckabee. Huckabee is a Clinton clone, dressed up as a evangelist. Remember what they used to say about Clinton being like a salamander and blending in with his surroundings, well the same goes for Huckabee.


33 posted on 12/29/2007 4:00:29 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Eva; Jim Robinson
"It doesn’t matter if they are supporting Hunter or Thompson or anyone else right now. The only two candidates who matter in Iowa are Romney and Huckabee. Huckabee would be worse than Romney. Huckabee is as phoney as Elmer Gantry, and far more dangerous.

Anyone who attacks Romney at this point is supporting Huckabee. Huckabee is a Clinton clone, dressed up as a evangelist. Remember what they used to say about Clinton being like a salamander and blending in with his surroundings, well the same goes for Huckabee.

Oh really. I find it interesting that you have written off all the non-liberal candidates before any votes have been cast and then basically are telling Freepers to shut up and don't expose Romney's record. You do know this is a conservative forum correct? And we espouse conservative ideals. And Romney is anathema to those ideals.




U.S. Army Retired


34 posted on 12/29/2007 4:09:35 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (Mitt to supporters: "DON'T TRY TO DEFEND MY LIBERAL RECORD. BELITTLE THEM WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Romney and Huckabee are far ahead in Iowa, unfortunately, and Iowa is where the ball is right now.

Romney has pulled ahead of Huckabee in the last few days.


35 posted on 12/29/2007 4:15:45 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

It was not so long ago they were saying the same thing about Giuliani. He was the ONLY Republican who could save us from Hillary. And before him it was McCain. And now the RINO saviour is Romney, or oops, Huckabee, no, Romney, no, Huckabee, etc. How the mighty RINOs have fallen and will continue to fall. Their support is a mile wide and an inch deep.

Go, Thompson/Hunter!!


36 posted on 12/29/2007 4:16:12 PM PST by Jim Robinson (Our God-given unalienable rights are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Eva

I think a great ticket would be Romney/Thompson (or vice versa).


37 posted on 12/29/2007 4:48:10 PM PST by GOP_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; Saint Athanasius
No, you are in the way-back zone, where people post 2-year-old stories to misrepresent the facts.

So, please enlighten me, at what point do facts expire? Clearly, according to you, a fact is no longer a fact after 2 years. Tell me, is a fact still a fact after 1 year?

38 posted on 12/29/2007 6:01:14 PM PST by rhinohunter (Thompson/Steele '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Eva
A. the field is wide open. There is no two horse race.
B. Romney is a liberal rino like Giuliani.
C. I supported Reagan when they said he had no chance. It turned out well.

Semper Fidelis

39 posted on 12/29/2007 7:32:35 PM PST by MrEdd (Heck is the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aren't going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

If Huckabee wins in Iowa, it will give momentum to go through the south. If Romney wins Iowa, it will just be one state.

You don’t seem to get it, Huckabee is a Clinton clone, dressed up as a Christian minister. His policies in Arkansas were the same as the Clintons, but his foreign policy and knowledge are sadly lacking. He has nothing to offer, he may as well be a third party candidate, for the damage that he will do to conservativism, under the guise of Christianity.


40 posted on 12/29/2007 7:49:21 PM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

“emergency contraception to sexual assault victims”

This is not RU486; it is not an abortion. It prevents pregnancy taken within 48 hrs of unprotected sex.


41 posted on 12/29/2007 7:51:55 PM PST by Saundra Duffy (Romney Rocks!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
Yes I know and any form of contraception if contrary to Catholic belief. That was my point. Forcing them to provide that forces them to violate a belief of the faith. I would be like forcing Jews to cook and provide pork in a restaurant.




U.S. Army Retired


42 posted on 12/29/2007 7:55:58 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (Mitt to supporters: "DON'T TRY TO DEFEND MY LIBERAL RECORD. BELITTLE THEM WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rhinohunter; big'ol_freeper

The facts are two years old.

The misrepresentation of the facts was done by the person who posted the article, where he wrote “More proof of Romney support for the Culture of Death.”

Romney does not support the culture of death, and that claim misrepresents the facts that are found in the article, which clearly states that Romney vetoed the legislation, and then tried to protect the hospitals after the legislation was passed.

he only switched because his legal counsel told him he’d lose the case because the law required the hospitals to dispense the medication — NOT because he supported the “culture of death”.

So my statement was exactly accurate — a 2-year-old story was posted so the poster could misrepresent the facts.

I don’t know why he couldn’t just find a more recent story that he could misrepresent. :-)


43 posted on 12/29/2007 9:11:14 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; rhinohunter

Would it be more accurate then to say that Romney doesn’t take a stand against the Culture of Death... that he surrenders... he allows it to happen?

Like Pontius Pilate...


44 posted on 12/30/2007 7:27:26 AM PST by Saint Athanasius ("I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

Boo Hoo.


45 posted on 12/30/2007 7:28:23 AM PST by verity ("Lord, what fools these mortals be!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy

Can you please tell how it prevents pregnancy within 48 hours?


46 posted on 12/30/2007 7:37:09 AM PST by Saint Athanasius ("I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Saint Athanasius

There are levels of “stands” to take. Most of us have decided to stay with the legal responses, rather than illegal responses.

I would expect an elected official not to engage in civil disobedience. That’s for regular folks who have not sworn an oath to uphold the law.

But yes, the argument that people are making about Romney is that he did not take a sufficient stand against the morning-after pill in this case. Which itself is on the fringe of the fight for life, and something I don’t think many people would go to jail over.

I think vetoing the legislation and then trying to maintain the previous law’s restrictions when the new law specifically excluded that restriction was taking a stand.

If it hadn’t been so clear that the law required ruling against the hospitals, I’m certain the legislature would have simply passed a new law making it clear.

In fact, the fight in the courts probably not that the law has been interepreted incorrectly, but more likely a claim that the law itself is unconstitutional, violating the religious conscious of the hospital.

In this instance, I would have lobbied my representatives to allow the exception. But in general there is a valid point to be made for government requiring standard treatment. Imagine a hospital run by Jehovah’s Witnesses that refuses to provide blood transfusions for example. You wouldn’t want to be transported to that hospital.

In this case, if you were a woman who didn’t believe the morning-after pill was really an abortion pill, or a woman who believed in abortion, you would be upset if you were taken to a hospital that refused to give you the legal treatment you wanted, especially if it meant you had to go get a more serious abortion operation later.

So from the pro-life perspective, I think hospitals should be given an exception, but I understand why the legislature ruled as it did.

In fact, I imagine that even in states that eventually ban abortion, even if they ban abortion for rape, they will probably NOT ban the morning-after pill. In fact, it may be the pill that makes it possible to ban abortion for rape, something that right now is so politically hard that our best pro-life candidate (well, at least the man the National Right To Life has given their endorsement to) supports legal abortion for rape victims (which means he probably supports the morning-after pill for those cases as well, although he hasn’t written about it).


47 posted on 12/30/2007 1:53:35 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Saint Athanasius
There is some debate (which is odd since it is a scientific fact, and shouldn't be debatable.

I'll use a pretty negative source, because it will be more to your liking than a more supportive site would be. This site will have a spin that is more negative than I think is justifiable, but it will answer your question.

Morning After Pill:

The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three possible ways in which it can work (as does the regular birth control pill):
  1. Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released;
  2. The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation; or
  3. It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first and second actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the human being created will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.
It is the 3rd option that is like an "abortion". However, whereas a normal abortion ejects the embryo from the uterus, in this case the embryo never gets implanted.

Normal birth control pills can also prevent implantation if they fail to stop fertilization. This is one reason why strict pro-lifers oppose birth control, and why pro-lifers who USE birth control will tend to NOT view plan b as an abortion agent.

48 posted on 12/30/2007 2:04:18 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; Saint Athanasius

Now for the real story:

Following exchanges of views in the London ‘Tablet’ during which a prominent Australian theologian expressed support for use of the “morning after pill” (see August ‘AD2000’), it is significant that the following article (here shortened) appeared in the Vatican’s official newspaper ‘L’Osservatore Romano.’ In her article, Maria Luisa Di Pietro, who teaches at the Institute of Bioethics, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, clarifies the Church’s opposition to use of the “morning after” pill.

The term “morning-after pill” indicates a series of preparations which are given to a woman after - but not more than 72 hours after (hence the name “morning-after”) - sexual intercourse that is presumed fertile. The effective action of “emergency contraception”, and hence of the “morning-after pill”, is abortifacient: in 80 per cent to 100 per cent of the cases the embryo is prevented from being implanted.

Those who say that the “morning-after pill” is not abortifacient, but prevents implantation, do not realise that they are affirming its abortifacient nature when they say that it prevents implantation: since this action can only take place after fertilisation and works by preventing the continued development of the embryo, it can only be abortifacient.

What has been said by those who maintain that preventing implantation is not abortifacient is denied moreover by E. Beaulieu, who, as the inventor of RU 486, otherwise known as the “abortion pill”, surely cannot be accused of religiously-motivated opinions: “Interruption of pregnancy after fertilisation can be regarded in the same way as abortion”.

Then there are those who, while recognising that the “morning-after pill” is abortifacient, call attention to the fact that in up to 20 per cent of the cases it might also act as a contraceptive: this would only occur if it were taken before the release of the egg cell from the ovary. But is it likely that a woman who, for various reasons takes a “morning-after pill,” would know what precise point in her cycle she has reached, in order to determine whether the result will be abortifacient or contraceptive?

Furthermore, even if it is true that the woman who takes the “morning-after pill” may not be pregnant or that the abortifacient effect will not occur, the woman who requests the pill and the doctor who prescribes or administers it willingly accept the risk of causing an abortion. Indeed, had there been a pregnancy, they would have opted precisely for abortion.

In the recent debate on the “morning-after pill” in particular and on “emergency contraception” in general, attention was drawn to only one situation which so many desperate persons are facing these days: violence to women in wartime. But watch out: campaigns for the “morning-after pill” do not only concern war zones and they do not only target women who have been raped.

Just think that, along with the many calls for all “emergency contraception” to be sold over the counter at pharmacies, that is, without a medical prescription, and to be readily available at all health-care centres for women and particularly for adolescent girls, there are also aid plans which envisage constant, programmed shipments of “emergency contraceptives” to developing countries and refugee camps.
Family planning organisations

It is in fact a routine practice of family planning organisations to send reproductive emergency kits, not only after a war - which suggests a concern for the woman who has just been raped, although no concern for the baby - but to those places where violent behaviour has not been curbed and so there is a desire to solve the situation in this way. See, for example, what was planned in 1996 for the Great Lakes region in Central Africa: at least $500,000 was allocated to promote reproductive health. The aid package included: family planning; the prevention of so-called unsafe abortions; “emergency contraception” for women who were victims of sexual violence or who had “unprotected” or unplanned sexual relations.

As we have said, the campaign to promote the “morning-after pill” also targets women who have been victims of sexual aggression.

Some have written that, in this case, conception was the result of a violent act, the most cruel, wicked and detestable that a woman can suffer: refusal to accept the elimination of this life - it is said - would be a sin of insensitivity!

It is a fact that the after-effects of rape will never be erased from a woman’s memory, just as she will never be able to forget that someone treated her as an object, someone attacked her with a brutality unworthy even of animals. But not even abortion will erase this memory: those who suggest it, those who impose it, those who request it, answer violence with violence, not only towards the woman, but especially towards the child, whose life should be respected like any other life conceived.

With abortion, wrote John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, n. 58, “the one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenceless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears. The unborn child is totally entrusted to the protection and care of the woman carrying him or her in the womb”.

For the woman to accept this child growing in her womb, the child of someone who did not love her, can be extremely difficult: she must be given help and support, she and her child must be cared for. She needs affection, not a box of pills!

When the baby is born, the woman will decide whether to keep it or to give it up to others for care. With the one great certainty however: she has not added to that madness of destruction and death which tried in an instant to erase her dignity as a woman, her world, her aspirations, her hopes. In these cases, real understanding for the woman means practical help for her and for the life of her child.


49 posted on 12/30/2007 2:10:42 PM PST by big'ol_freeper (Mitt to supporters: "DON'T TRY TO DEFEND MY LIBERAL RECORD. BELITTLE THEM WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper

I object to your first sentence, which suggests that somehow I attempted to be less than truthful in my response.

While your post dealt more with the religious argument, and was much more wordy, my brief response provided the same facts, and was cited from a source that generally opposes the morning-after pill, but from a more scientific rather than religious basis.


50 posted on 12/30/2007 2:23:03 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 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