Brass ... or not?

The Unorthodox Catholic ^ | 5/2/2007 | markomalley

[markomalley]

Catholic News Agency reports that the Connecticut Legislature has passed a bill that requires all hospitals in Connecticut to provide Plan B to rape victims. Including the state's four Catholic hospitals.

Naturally, the state's bishops conference is opposed to this bill. They, correctly so, do not wish to be involved in a practice that is directly opposed to the teaching of the Church. Good for them.

But this praise is muted.

The bishops report:

“Catholic hospitals provide emergency contraception to rape victims in the vast majority of cases,” the bishops noted in their letter (to the legislature). “In fact, it is an extreme rarity when this medication would not be provided.”

When won't they provide the drug? When the woman is pregnant or ovulating.

WTF???

Let's think about this a minute, folks. You're providing an emergency contraceptive to a woman except for the time when the pill would have some effect. (See below for a layman's explanation of why Plan B is objectionable). This makes no sense. None.

If this pill isn't being given when it would have some effect, you're administering hormones to a woman, why???

If this pill is being given when it would have some effect, you're giving this pill out in direct violation of the magesterium of the Church. From Humanae Vitae:

...the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. ... Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

What part of “absolutely excluded” is confusing here, folks? I don't see much wiggle room in the above statement.

Either you're giving a woman a pill to make her think that she's doing something in direct violation of the Magesterium you're doing something that's in direct violation of the Magesterium. I, for one, just don't see much difference from an ethical point of view.

The CNA article also says:

DeLuca had proposed an amendment, which was endorsed by the Catholic Conference, would require every hospital to have a written protocol for dealing with rape victims. Hospitals would be allowed to refer such patients to other facilities, but would have to report their reasons for doing so to the Department of Public Health.

WTF???

So we don't want to get the blood on our hands, we'll hire a hit man to do it for us...that way our hands will stay pure. (Sounds like the scene from the Godfather where the undertaker wants Don Vito to do a hit for him)

COOPERATION WITH EVIL IS EVIL!

There is no moral difference between giving the Plan B drug out and sending somebody to a place where she can get the Plan B drug. None.

What is wrong with these people? Why is the perfectly obvious not obvious to them??

There are far too many bishops who are in favor of dancing with the devil like this and far too few who are willing to take a stand. We need to pray for the former, so that they get some brass and pray to get more of the latter.

These bishops need to understand what a "pastoral" role is. They've got to set the standard. They've got to lead the flock. Sheep are some of the most stupid animals ever created. And some of the most obstinate. It takes a shepherd who knows exactly how to use that staff to keep them together. And to keep them alive.

Bishops that compromise with evil like what is shown above cannot be expected to keep the standards when it comes to Catholic politicians and abortion. They cannot be expected to wield the staff when it comes to schismatic laity (e.g., VOTF). They may want to. Our Lord calls on them to do so. But if they don't know how...or aren't willing...to wield the staff, how can we realistically expect them to do so?

We need to pray for them that they accept and stand up to their vocations.

[markomalley]

Feedback welcome, as always.

[Vaquero]

Church run hospitals should be alowed to transfer the patient to another hospital after performing initial treatment.

Rape and Incest are still my only criteria for abortions and only in the first couple of days.

[Mad Dawg]

IT's a tough one, to me. And what the bishops are describing is incomprehensible to me.

On a more general scale:
I'm behind Humanae Vitae. I'm also behind a pluralistic society. And that means, to me at least, that I have to pretend sometimes that I'm NOT behind Humanae Vitae and imagine how things look from out there.

Then I revert to myself. Will I stand up for defenseless innocent life? Or will I tell the rape victim something like, "You know, we think the use of this drug is the taking of an innocent human life, so we won't do it. If you disagree, we will transport you to another facility where they will help you take an innocent human life."

Sometimes I think WE ought to get out of the hosptial business altogether. On the one hand, if we live by our principles, some rape victim will curse God that she was raped in the RC Hospital Catchment area. On the same hand, some years later her child, if it's allowed to live, will thank God that her mother was raped and impregnated in the RC Hospital's catchment area.

I know! Let's cut the hospital in half ....

---

[markomalley]

Rape and Incest are still my only criteria for abortions and only in the first couple of days.

Perhaps you'd care to explain, in either of the above cases, what the thing aborted did to deserve a death penalty?

I understand your point...but when I remember that the objective of pro-life is not restricting the actions of the woman, but saving the life of the baby, it puts matters in a different perspective (IMHO, FWIW, YMMV)

[Andrew Byler]

Church run hospitals should be alowed to transfer the patient to another hospital after performing initial treatment.

So as long as you ship them off to a butcher somewhere else, you have no blood on your hands for doing so?

[Vaquero]

It happens to be MY criteria. I neither explain or apologize.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I believe there is a moral difference between the two. In the first case, you are performing an act against the will of God. In the second, you are allowing an independent agent the choice to act against the will of God.

You are not forcing the woman to transfer and take the drug, you are simply offering the woman her right to leave your hospital if she disagrees with your treatment, and to be allowed to pick a hospital of her choice.

While I understand the argument that transporting the woman KNOWING what she will do is to be somewhat “complicit” in the event, My opinion is that since the woman still has to choose what to do when she gets there, the transportation is NOT explicitly complicit in the choice. And if this is a hangup, let the other facility to the transfer.

The counter-argument would be to say that our right to protect the possible unborn life is so great as to allow us to hold a woman against her will to prevent her from obtaining the care she chooses. And if you think a hospital should be allowed to do so, you should also then extend that to all instances where abortion is done.

In other words, if a hospital has a moral obligation to hold the patient against her will to prevent a plan b, the catholic church and its members have a moral obligation to kidnap women trying to get into abortion clinics, to block those clinics to prevent access, and even to employ force in the process.

I can’t imagine there is much support for those acts, and I see only a matter of degree between them and the act of allowing the woman to go to a different hospital.

The only clear line to be drawn is NOT providing the service by your own hand. So I think there IS a moral difference.

[CharlesWayneCT]

In this case I agree with mark.

Either abortion restriction is primarily about punishing the woman, or it is about saving the human life inside her.

If it is about saving the human life, that human life has the same value regardless of its parentage. In the case of rape, the child is as well-conceived as any between two unrelated adults, except the child has a criminal father. We would not put to death a child for the sins of his father, so how can we justify killing the child because his existance was the result of sin?

If God intended NOT to have children born who were the product of sin, he would prevent the contraception in cases of rape — he has the power to do so. Since he does not, we can infer that he sees the child as independent of the sin. And since the sin is not that of the mother, his choice to allow the child to be conceived cannot be interpreted as his own punishment of the mother for her sin.

But what about incest? In that case, there are strictures both in law and canon law regarding the conception, based partly on the danger of birth defects. But if we use “birth defect” as the criteria upon which we allow an incest exemption, why stop there? IN fact, why allow abortion for the “possible defects” of incest, but forbid it when tests show actual defects not related to incest?

I will note that by separating rape and incest, it implies that the incest exception is in play when the sex was consensual (otherwise it would be rape). This will be more important in a bit, but to say that a child of a consensual but sinful relationship can be murdered, but ONLY in the case of ONE type of consensual but sinful relationship, is illogical.

For example, if “incest” is meant as a code-word for “getting a minor pregnant”, why not allow abortion if a teacher impregnates a 13-year-old? Why only allow abortion if that teacher was related to the child?

NOW, if you are looking at banning abortion as a way to punish a woman for her behavior, then allowing abortion for rape is to say that we don’t hold the woman responsible for the pregnancy in that instance. But you still can’t justify the exception for consensual incest, since it was consensual. In fact, consensual incest would not only be an act by the woman, but a sinful act.

And if the excuse is the incest is with a child who should not be held responsible, again I say why an incest exception rather than a “sex with a minor” exception?

In short, an exception for “rape and incest” is illogical with respect to the justification for banning abortion, and an exception for “incest” is illogical even with respect to a justification of “culpability of the mother”, an idea I reject anyway.

[mockingbyrd]

let me get this straight.....I drive friend to abortion clinic and she kills her baby, I get excommunicated. I send patient to another hospital where she can kill her baby, I’m all good? How the heck does that work?

[markomalley]

How about this as a potentially morally acceptable answer:

Doctor: Because you are near your ovulation time, you may have conceived a child as a result of this horrible act. You should, in a couple of weeks, be tested for a pregnancy to see if this did, in fact, happen.

Patient: Uggh. I cannot bear the thought of raising the child of that monster inside of me.

Doctor: I understand, and the chances are very good that you didn't conceive. But there is always that possibility. Regardless of how it happened, if you did conceive, that child has no responsibility for the act that created it. The child, if you did conceive, is an innocent.

Patient: I don't care. I want Plan B so that I don't have to deal with it. I can't.

Doctor: If you need help raising the child, we can help you get assistance. If you don't want to raise the child, we can help find a family that would love to raise the child.

Patient: No, you don't understand. Get it through your thick skull...I want Plan B. And I want it NOW.

Doctor: I can't support giving you something that may take the life of an innocent child.

Patient: Then tell me where I can get it.

Doctor: I won't do that. That would be no better than me giving it to you.

Patient: Then I'll find out on my own.

Doctor: That's your legal right in this country. But you are acting against my medical advise: if you have conceived and take that pill, it may kill the baby (if, in fact, you have conceived).

Patient: (Storms out the door)

Doctor: (calling to her as she leaves) If you change your mind, we're here to help. Think about the consequences before you do this...

That, to me, is not being complicit without holding "a woman against her will to prevent her from obtaining the care she chooses."

Your thoughts?

[markomalley]

let me get this straight.....I drive friend to abortion clinic and she kills her baby, I get excommunicated. I send patient to another hospital where she can kill her baby, I’m all good? How the heck does that work?

And that's why I raised the issue...if it's so perfectly obvious, why don't the CT bishops get it?

[Andrew Byler]

While I understand the argument that transporting the woman KNOWING what she will do is to be somewhat “complicit” in the event

I don't see the moral difference between, for example, driving someone to an abortion clinic and working as a receptionist in an abortion clinic.

This is like claiming perimeter guards at a concentration camp are innocent of the blood being shed within because they didn't personally kill anyone.

The counter-argument would be to say that our right to protect the possible unborn life is so great as to allow us to hold a woman against her will to prevent her from obtaining the care she chooses.

There is a good argument to be made for this. We involuntarily commit people to mental facilities when they are a known threat to themselves. Why should we act any diffierently with someone who is a known threat to another person?

Isn't procuring an abortion really a sign of a form of mental illness?