Two African American bishops and abortion

D.C. CatholicExaminer ^ | October 23, 2008 | Eric Wilson

[Salvation]

Two African American bishops and abortion

October 23, 12:28 PM

by Eric Wilson, D.C. Catholic Examiner

  

 

Bishop Martin Holley

An interesting juxtaposition emerged this week from the statements of two African American bishops on the abortion issue.  First, Bishop Martin Holley, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Washington, released a statement last week responding to a Guttmacher Institute (named for Alan Guttmacher, former president of Planned Parenthood and former vice-president of the American Eugenics Society) survey which found black women in the U.S. abort pregnancies at a rate five times that of white women.

Bishop Holley, who is chair of the African American Subcommittee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), wrote,

As an African American, I am saddened by evidence that Black women continue to be targeted by the abortion industry. The loss of any child from abortion is a tragedy, but we must ask: Why are minority children being aborted at such disproportionate rates?

Many African Americans are not aware that since the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, the number one cause of death in the African American community has been abortion. We have lost over 13 million lives. To put that in perspective, it is one third of our present Black population.  Since 1973, twice as many Black Americans have died from abortion than from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.

These fact are particularly alarming given the roots of Planned Parenthood, the nation's number one abortion provider, which sprung from the American Eugenics Movement in the early 20th Century.  Eugenicists, like the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, sought to prevent the procreation of "unfit" and "undesirable" elements of society, which for these racists, included African Americans and immigrants. 

Although most Americans have forgotten the sinister aims of the birth control and abortion movements, the Guttmacher study - the research arm of Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood - reveals they are succeeding in their mission of "racial betterment."

Counseling the African American community, Bishop Holley writes further, "our legitimate commitment to other social concerns must not push the primary moral issue of abortion onto the back burner. It clearly must be at the heart and center of our discussion of the survival of African American people.

Compare this very clear statement about the urgency with which Catholics must address the issue of legalized abortion in the United States with remarks made by Bishop Terry Steib of Memphis, who stated "we [Catholics] cannot be a one issue people."  This statement was heralded by the liberal newspaper the National Catholic Reporter as a rejection of the teaching promoted by many American bishops that faithful Catholics must not vote for pro-abortion candidates.

However, a careful reading of Bishop Steib's remarks reveals his point is more nuanced than the Reporter and other liberal Catholic groups would like.  One might interpret his statement is intended to counsel black Catholics against voting for Sen. Barack Obama simply because he is black.  For example, Bishop Steib writes,

according to our Holy Father, we disciples of Jesus cannot remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice; this means that we must be part of the game. However, politics is not just a game; it is instead a part of the commonwealth of our lives...But if we are to be involved in the political process by voting, then we must have formed our consciences well.

Bishop Steib further cautions that "it is much easier to choose because of personality rather than the content of character. It is easier to say 'I just like him or her; he or she is one of us' rather than to ponder, reflect, and pray for our choice prudently."

Quoting the USCCB's Faithful Citizenship document, he advises the faithful that

There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

 

Catholics believe abortion to be a fundamental moral evil and Sen. Obama has promised to make abortion a civil right, if elected, and expand access to abortions.  Is Sen. McCain completely in line with all Church teachings?  Clearly not, but he does support the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy in all 50 states.

 

For more info: Bishop Holley's complete statement; Bishop Steib's remarks

[Salvation]

Quite interesting, although differing, views held by these two black bishops.

For your information and discussion.

[Salvation]

Catholic Discussion Ping!

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.

[realcleanguy]

That fact of the matter is this: Democrats want to eliminate minorities through abortion. I thought everybody knew this already. Dems are racists

[ari-freedom]

obama wants blacks to abort more of their babies and draft the ones that weren’t.

Obama:
But it’s also important that a president speaks to military service as an obligation not just of some, but of many. You know, I traveled, obviously, a lot over the last 19 months. And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some.
http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/11/transcript-servicenation-presidential-forum-at-columbia-university/

[Salvation]

Bishop Martin D. Holley
Auxiliary Bishop of Washington

Ordination

Priesthood: May 8, 1987 at the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, Pensacola, FL

Bishop: July 2, 2004 at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle, Washington, DC 

[Salvation]

The Most Reverend J. Terry Steib, S.V.D.
Bishop of Memphis
INSTALLED May 5, 1993

[Salvation]

That’s why I thought this was such an interesting article. One definitely against abortion, andother a little wishy-washy.

[Salvation]

Did you see this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSiPqjU6fYI&eurl=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2105631/posts

 

You Tube - Over 1,500 Black Babies Per Day Are Killed In The USA / Pro-Life Anti-Abortion Video PSA

[Salvation]

Then watch this one:

video from CatholicVote.com

Powerful
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2008/09/new-video-from-catholicvotecom.html

[realcleanguy]

It’s weird, all clergy should be against abortion, without question. And abortion is actually eliminating the Black race. I am amazed that any Black Candidate is for it

[Salvation]

**But it’s also important that a president speaks to military service as an obligation not just of some, but of many.**

I had a son in Desert Storm. Understand your statement completely.

[Salvation]

Have you seen the provisions of FOCA yet? Truly chilling!

[Salvation]

S.1173
Title: A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 4/19/2007)      Cosponsors (19)
Related Bills: H.R.1964
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

---

Jump to: Summary, Major Actions, All Actions, Titles, Cosponsors, Committees, Related Bill Details, Amendments

---

SUMMARY AS OF:
4/19/2007--Introduced.

Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health.

Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively.

Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action.

---

MAJOR ACTIONS:

***NONE***

---

ALL ACTIONS:

4/19/2007:

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

---

TITLE(S):  (italics indicate a title for a portion of a bill)

• SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
  Freedom of Choice Act

• OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
  A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

---

COSPONSORS(19), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:     (Sort: by date)

Sen Baucus, Max [MT] - 4/19/2007
Sen Bingaman, Jeff [NM] - 4/19/2007
Sen Brown, Sherrod [OH] - 5/2/2007
Sen Cantwell, Maria [WA] - 4/19/2007
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 4/19/2007
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] - 4/19/2007
Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] - 4/19/2007
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] - 6/13/2007
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 4/19/2007
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. [CT] - 4/23/2007
Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ] - 4/19/2007
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] - 4/19/2007
Sen Murray, Patty [WA] - 4/19/2007
Sen Obama, Barack [IL] - 5/11/2007
Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] - 4/25/2007
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 4/19/2007
Sen Stabenow, Debbie [MI] - 4/19/2007
Sen Tester, Jon [MT] - 4/23/2007
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] - 6/6/2007

---

COMMITTEE(S):

Committee/Subcommittee:		Activity:
Senate Judiciary		Referral, In Committee

---

RELATED BILL DETAILS:  (additional related bills may be indentified in Status)

Bill:	Relationship:
H.R.1964	Related bill identified by CRS

---

AMENDMENT(S):

***NONE***

The actual contents of the bill are as follows:

S 1173 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1173

To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 19, 2007

Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mrs. MURRAY, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. CLINTON, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. BAUCUS, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

A BILL

To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman's freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Freedom of Choice Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) The United States was founded on core principles, such as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions without governmental interference and discrimination.

(2) One of the most private and difficult decisions an individual makes is whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy. Those reproductive health decisions are best made by women, in consultation with their loved ones and health care providers.

(3) In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479), and in 1973, in Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) and Doe v. Bolton (410 U.S. 179), the Supreme Court recognized that the right to privacy protected by the Constitution encompasses the right of every woman to weigh the personal, moral, and religious considerations involved in deciding whether to begin, prevent, continue, or terminate a pregnancy.

(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balances the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the State's interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, the right to privacy protects a woman's decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to fetal viability, with the State permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health.

(5) These decisions have protected the health and lives of women in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, an estimated 1,200,000 women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration, and death. Before Roe, it is estimated that thousands of women died annually in the United States as a result of illegal abortions.

(6) In countries in which abortion remains illegal, the risk of maternal mortality is high. According to the World Health Organization, of the approximately 600,000 pregnancy-related deaths occurring annually around the world, 80,000 are associated with unsafe abortions.

(7) The Roe v. Wade decision also expanded the opportunities for women to participate equally in society. In 1992, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (505 U.S. 833), the Supreme Court observed that, `[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.'.

(8) Even though the Roe v. Wade decision has stood for more than 34 years, there are increasing threats to reproductive health and freedom emerging from all branches and levels of government. In 2006, South Dakota became the first State in more than 15 years to enact a ban on abortion in nearly all circumstances. Supporters of this ban have admitted it is an attempt to directly challenge Roe in the courts. Other States are considering similar bans.

(9) Further threatening Roe, the Supreme Court recently upheld the first-ever Federal ban on an abortion procedure, which has no exception to protect a woman's health. The majority decision in Gonzales v. Carhart (05-380, slip op. April 18, 2007) and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America fails to protect a woman's health, a core tenet of Roe v. Wade. Dissenting in that case, Justice Ginsburg called the majority's opinion `alarming', and stated that, `[f]or the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health'. Further, she said, the Federal ban `and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court'.

(10) Legal and practical barriers to the full range of reproductive services endanger women's health and lives. Incremental restrictions on the right to choose imposed by Congress and State legislatures have made access to reproductive care extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many women across the country. Currently, 87 percent of the counties in the United States have no abortion provider.

(11) While abortion should remain safe and legal, women should also have more meaningful access to family planning services that prevent unintended pregnancies, thereby reducing the need for abortion.

(12) To guarantee the protections of Roe v. Wade, Federal legislation is necessary.

(13) Although Congress may not create constitutional rights without amending the Constitution, Congress may, where authorized by its enumerated powers and not prohibited by the Constitution, enact legislation to create and secure statutory rights in areas of legitimate national concern.

(14) Congress has the affirmative power under section 8 of article I of the Constitution and section 5 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution to enact legislation to facilitate interstate commerce and to prevent State interference with interstate commerce, liberty, or equal protection of the laws.

(15) Federal protection of a woman's right to choose to prevent or terminate a pregnancy falls within this affirmative power of Congress, in part, because--

(A) many women cross State lines to obtain abortions and many more would be forced to do so absent a constitutional right or Federal protection;

(B) reproductive health clinics are commercial actors that regularly purchase medicine, medical equipment, and other necessary supplies from out-of-State suppliers; and

(C) reproductive health clinics employ doctors, nurses, and other personnel who travel across State lines in order to provide reproductive health services to patients.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.

(2) STATE- The term `State' means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States.

(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which the provision is held to be unconstitutional, shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE EFFECT.

This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.

ENDn

[realcleanguy]

Yikes! What a sobering video

[realcleanguy]

Boxer should have been voted out years ago. She is still running on the vary things she said she would fix when she was running for the House 25 years ago. She has accomplished nothing in all this time

[Salvation]

I would like to see that on all the TV stations all over the south and in the big cities with areas of black population. Just might change their minds about Obama, huh?

[BIOCHEMKY]

What the heck is Lieberman doing on the list of supporters for the FOCA bill?!

[WildcatClan]

Not a chance. It might bring out Evangelicals and Christians of all races who at this time are lukewarm about voting for McCain.

I can’t fathom the clergy of any Church supporting Obama or even lightly suggesting that the congregation vote for him. In a Church where there is no sanctity in the life that God has given us; Then I would submit that we are no longer speaking of a Church but rather a heretical social club.

[stevem]

I am saddened by evidence that Black women continue to be targeted by the abortion industry.

Successfully targeted, apparently. Why, I believe they are also targeted, successfully, by Democrat politicians. Are the targeters looking out for the best interest of their market, or are they peddlers selling their snake oil along the line of least resistance?

Blacks obviouly think it's a matter of interest. Fascinating.

[Campion]

That's why I thought this was such an interesting article. One definitely against abortion, andother a little wishy-washy.

But consider this:

Bishop Steib further cautions that "it is much easier to choose because of personality rather than the content of character. It is easier to say 'I just like him or her; he or she is one of us' rather than to ponder, reflect, and pray for our choice prudently."

He's not chiding pro-lifers there. That's a pretty direct slap in the face of black Catholics who would vote for Obama on the basis of race.