Conscience and contraception

State Rep. Fran Coleman recently criticized the Catholic Church for "preaching" to her because, although she is Catholic, she represents people of all faiths. She took issue with Catholic resistance to portions of HB 1042, which would require hospitals in the state to provide emergency contraception for women who are raped.

Rape is a brutal, ugly and inexcusable form of violence. Rep. Coleman's feelings are understandable. She is a legislator of proven service and character. She is right in seeking immediate medical intervention for women who suffer rape. While conception from rape is rare, it does happen, and Catholic teaching supports the right of rape victims to defend themselves against potential conception.

Genuine emergency contraception - i.e., steps to prevent ovulation following a rape - poses no problem for Catholics. The Church and her health-care institutions already allow for this as an act of defense against violent sexual assault. But "emergency contraception" is one of those expressions that sounds compelling but easily gets twisted. HB 1042 does a bad job of defining it.

Medical science traditionally saw fertilization of a woman's egg - not implantation in the uterine wall - as the beginning of pregnancy and life itself. The abortion lobby, of course, worked hard to change that.

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.

HB 1042 describes emergency contraception as "any drug or device approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration that prevents pregnancy after sexual intercourse, including but not limited to contraceptive pills." But the bill should also state that, for purposes of informed consent, the health-care facility must inform the patient of what the "drug or device" is, and what it does. A victim of sexual assault surely has the right to know what is being administered to her and what its potential effects are.

Another concern is this: If the victim has recently been sexually intimate with her husband - roughly within the previous four days - she could have her husband's and her own newly conceived child making its way to the womb and inadvertently prevent it from implanting. If so, there would now be, in a sense, multiple victims: the woman suffering from the original assault, a mother and father deprived of their child, and the newly conceived child whose life is ended.

Catholic hospitals want to offer sexual assault victims the facts needed for full informed consent. We believe it's sometimes necessary to perform medical tests to determine the right course of action to conform to sound medical judgment. We don't want to refer out for procedures we consider immoral, and HB 1042 would require that in an unprecedented way.

At a minimum, Catholic hospitals - which provide their services based on moral and religious convictions about the dignity of the human person - should not be obligated to perform or refer for procedures which violate Catholic teaching. This doesn't involve "preaching" to anybody. It involves fidelity to principle and conscience - the same principles and conscience that animate Catholic service to the poor.

Coloradans owe rape victims our compassion and immediate support. In providing that support, methods matter. A good end, no matter how urgent, cannot justify bad means.

HB 1042 is a well-intentioned piece of legislation. What it needs now is the clarity of deeper moral and scientific reflection, and room for people and institutions to remain true to their consciences in responding.

Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput is the archbishop of Denver and a member of the Order of Friars Minor, Capuchin (Franciscans.)

I generally like Bishop Chaput and I think he is right to question this bill and call the "Catholic" lawmaker to account, but the following I found odd and perhaps disconcerting, someone set me straight if I am off base.

"Genuine emergency contraception - i.e., steps to prevent ovulation following a rape - poses no problem for Catholics." -- wouldn't this then make tube tying (don't know the medical term) morally licit since it prevents ovulation? Since it is not morally licit, then this genuine emergency conctraception would not be allowable, am I off base?

Ok, I figured Chaput would be on firm moral ground and wouldn't have to worry too much, I was just a little confused by that part of his response.

"...wouldn't this then make tube tying (don't know the medical term) morally licit since it prevents ovulation? "

I don't believe so. The RCC is concerned that sexual relations between a husband and wife have the potential to produce a child. Tubal ligation ends that potential.

The purpose of rape is never to produce life. The RCC walks a fine line here but I think it's consistent with their beliefs. The context of the act does have meaning.

And there will be RC women who carry on with such a pregnancy and allow their child to be adopted.

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.