Posted on 12/09/2005 11:07:13 AM PST by NYer
Gov. Mitt Romney abandoned plans Thursday to exempt Roman Catholic and other private hospitals from a new law requiring them to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims.
Romney had initially backed regulations proposed earlier this week by his public health commissioner, Paul Cote Jr., who said the new law conflicted with an older law barring the state from forcing private hospitals to dispense contraceptive devices or information.
The Republican governor, who is considering a run for president in 2008, said he asked his legal advisers to review the matter after members of both parties criticized the regulations. He said the lawyers determined that the new law superseded the old law and that all hospitals should be required to offer the so-called "morning-after pill."
"On that basis I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view," Romney said.
"In my personal view, it's the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape," he added.
The new law takes effect Dec. 14. Passed this summer by the Legislature, which then overrode Romney's veto, it states that the pill must be available to "each female rape victim."
Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, the likely GOP nominee for governor next year if Romney decides not to seek re-election, had broken ranks with the governor on the issue, saying Wednesday that all hospitals should be required to distribute the pill.
Attorney General Tom Reilly, a Democrat planning to run for governor next year, said Romney's initial legal interpretation was "a backdoor regulation" and would not have survived court challenge. He also highlighted the focus of the law: victims of rape.
"It's a horrible thing to happen to anybody," Reilly said. "You don't want to make it any worse, and this administration was on a road that would have made it worse for women in that position."
The emergency contraception pill is a high dose of hormones that women can take up to five days after sex to prevent pregnancy. Opponents who believe life begins at conception contend the pill is little different from an abortion because it blocks the fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall.
Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom had said the governor supported allowing hospitals to opt out on religious or moral grounds because an exemption "respects the views of health care facilities that are guided by moral principles on this issue."
Caritas Christi Health Care, which is owned by the Catholic Church and is the second-largest health care system in New England, said in a statement it provides emergency contraception to female patients, but only those who are not already pregnant.
Critics said the proposed regulations were an attempt by the Romney administration to cater to conservative primary voters.
"I think this has more to do with political ambitions," said state Sen. Susan Fargo, a Democrat who supports the bill. "Unfortunately you can't decide where you are going to be raped so you can be near the best hospital for that."
Seven other states require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, and none include exemptions for religious and moral reasons. Three Illinois pharmacists filed a complaint with regulators in that state this week alleging they were dismissed from their jobs after refusing to fill prescriptions for the pill.
Board of Directors 2005-2006
Appointed CMA Positions
Regional Directors
|
'If the hormonal agents used in emergency contraception are intended to suppress ovulation, and if theyre applied at a point in a victims 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 doesnt 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.'
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 :-).
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.!
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.
Have a good afternoon - hope to cross paths with you again soon!
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 cultureoffspring of theoretical and practical materialismwhich 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 goodswhich it is only normal that one would want to safeguardare 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.
More babies getting the death penalty for an adults crime.
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
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.
"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.
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!
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."
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.
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.
later pingout.
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.
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.